, 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 

PROFESSOR  JOHN  ELOF  BOODIN 

MEMORIAL  PHILOSOPHY 

COLLECTION 


Cen  Cpocfjs  of  Ctwrcf) 


(Hftiteu  b^ 

fulton,  swa 


ToL  IIL 


THE 
ECUMENICAL  COUNCILS 


BY 

WILLIAM  P.  DU  BOSE,  S.T.D, 

AUTHOR   OF    "  SOTERIOLOGY,"    ETC. 


£0e  Christian  feiferaf are  Co. 

MDCCCXCVI 


Copyright,  1896, 
BY  THE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE  COMPANY. 


CONTENTS. 


PREFACE 


CHAP.  I. — THE  CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. — 
Qualification  for  Interpreting  Christ. — Christ  as  Ethical  and 
Religious  Ideal. — Christ  more  than  an  Ideal  of  Humanity. — 
Relation  of  Christ  to  Old  Testament. — The  Primitive  Gos- 
pel.— Christ's  Authority. — The  Divine  and  the  Human  in 
Christ. — Divinely  Human  and  Humanly  Divine. — The  Law 
and  the  Gospel. — Truth  is  Polar. — Duality  of  Our  Lord's 
Person. — The  Organic  Age  of  Christianity i 

CHAP.  II. — THE  NATURAL  BASIS  OF  A  SCRIPTURAL  AND 
CATHOLIC  CHRISTOLOGY. — Harmony  of  the  Early  Fathers. 
— Incarnation  and  Generation. — Human  Knowledge  of  God. 
— Truth  and  Reason. — Incarnation  and  Atonement  Neces- 
sary.— Meaning  of  Inspiration. — Particular  and  Universal 
Truth.— The  Increment  of  Truth.— The  Church  and  the 
Council. — Authority  and  Experience 27 

CHAP.  III. — EBIONISM  AND  DOCETISM. — Jewish  and  Gentile 
Christians. — The  Mission  of  Judaism. — Heathenism,  Juda- 
ism, Christianity. — Ebionism. — Artemon  and  Paul  of  Samo- 
sata.  —  Samosatenism  and  Arianism. — Dualism. — Gnosti- 
cism.— •Docetism. — Apollinarianism  and  Eutychianism . . . .  48 

CHAP.  IV. — SABELLIANISM  AND  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE 
TRINITARIAN  DISCUSSION. — Patripassian  Monarchianism. 
— The  Immanence  of  God. — Relation  of  God  and  the 
World. — The  Truth  of  the  Trinity. — Piety  versus  Specula- 
tion.—  Primitive  Thought  of  the  Trinity. —  Primitive 
Thought  of  the  Logos. — Nature  and  the  Supernatural. — 
Absoluteness  of  Our  Lord's  Humanity. —  Christian  Pan- 
theism    69 

CHAP.  V. — THE  ORIGIN  AND  RISE  OF  ARIANISM. — Theologi- 
cal Motive  of  Arianism. — Need  of  an  Exact  Terminology. — 


2067313 


vi  Contents. 


PAGE 

Outbreak  of  the  Heresy. — Tenets  of  Arianism. — Denies  both 
Godhead  and  Manhood. — The  Catholic  Doctrine. — Logos 
and  Son. — Constantino  the  Great. — Sincerity  of  his  Policy. 
— Gradual  Approach  to  Christianity. — His  zeal  for  Unity 
and  Uniformity.  —  Failure  of  Constantine's  Policy 90 

CHAP.  VI. — THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC*A. — Note  of  Ecumenicity. 
— The  Emperor  and  the  Council. — The  Arians  in  the  Coun- 
cil.— Conservatives  in  the  Council. — Athanasius  and  the 
Catholics. — Arius  and  Athanasius. — The  Creed  of  Nicsea. — 
Necessity  of  Definitions. — The  Arguments  of  Athanasius. — 
Result  of  the  Council 114 

CHAP.  VII.— ARIANISM  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^EA. — 
Testimony  Prior  to  Reflection. — Doubt  and  Reaction. — 
Action  of  the  Different  Parties. — The  Conservatives. — Objec- 
tions to  the  "  Homoousion." — Force  of  the  "  Homoousion." 
— Meaning  of  "Substance." — Policy  of  the  Arians. — At- 
tempt to  Destroy  Athanasius. — Athanasius  in  Exile. — Vio- 
lence of  Constantius. — Julian,  Jovian,  and  Valens. — Disin- 
tegration of  Arianism. — Triumph  of  Nicenism 134 

CHAP.  VIII. — THE  FIRST  GENERAL  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANTI- 
NOPLE.— Continuation  of  Nicene  Theology. — Meaning  of 
"  Hypostasis "  or  "Person." — Review  of  Trinitarian 
Thought. — Distinctions  within  the  Godhead. — Growth  of 
a  Religious  Philosophy. — Lights  and  Shadows  of  the  Pe- 
riod.— Faithfulness  of  the  Common  People. — The  Creed  of 
Constantinople. — Practical  Legislation 162 

CHAP.  IX. — APOLLINARIANISM. — Opening  of  Christological 
Discussion. — The  End  of  the  Incarnation. — The  Eternal 
Humanity  of  the  Son. — Christ  the  Realization  of  Humanity. 
— Significance  of  Redemption. — Christ's  Humanity  Ours. — 
Opposition  to  Nestorianism. — Tendency  to  Monophysitism. 
—The  Humanity  not  yet  Defined. — Christianity  more  than 
a  Revelation 180 

CHAP.  X.— NESTORIANISM.— The  School  of  Antioch.— Theo- 
dore of  Mopsuestia. — Our  Lord's  Dual  Personality. — A 
Gnomic  Unity. — St.  John  Chrysostom. — Nestorius. — The 
Counter-school  of  Alexandria. — Opposite  Points  of  View. — 
St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria. — Attitude  of  the  Roman  Bishop.  . .  201 

CHAP.  XI. — THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS.— Conservative  Temper 
of  Antioch. — Division  in  the  Council. — Movement  toward 
Reconciliation.— Obstacles  to  Reconciliation.— Net  Result  of 


Contents.  vii 


PAGE 

the  Council. — Doctrine  of  the  "One  Incarnate  Nature." — 
Alexandrian  Christology  Defective. — Character  of  Cyril. — 
Renewal  of  the  Issue 223 

CHAP.  XII. — EUTYCHIANISM   AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCE- 

DON. — Character  and  Views  of  Eutyches. — The  "Robber 
Synod." — Leo's  Letter  to  Flavian. — The  Synod  Sustained  by 
the  Emperor. — Council  of  Chalcedon. — The  Chalcedonian 
Decrees. — The  Chalcedonian  Symbol. — Criticism  of  the 
Tome. — Its  Insufficiency. — Defects  of  Leo's  Christology. — 
Political  Schemes  of  Leo. — Primacy  of  Rome 242 

CHAP.  XIII. — THE  MONOPHYSITES  AND  THE  SECOND  COUN- 
CIL OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. — Revolt  against  Decrees  of 
Chalcedon. — Monophysite  Propaganda. — Justinian  as  Me- 
diator.—Edict  of  the  Three  Chapters.— The  Fifth  General 
Council. — Principal  of  Monophysitism. — The  Scientific  Dif- 
ficulty.— The  Religious  Difficulty 267 

CHAP.  XIV.— THE  MONOTHELITES  AND  THE  THIRD  COUN- 
CIL OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. — One  Will  or  Two? — Maximus 
Confessor. — Sequence  of  Events. — Sergius  of  Constanti- 
nople.— Honorius  Originator  of  Monothelitism. — Excuse 
for  the  Monothelitic  Revolt. — The  Sixth  General  Council.— 
John  of  Damascus 284 

CHAP.  XV. — ADOPTIONISM. — Meaning  of  Adoptionism. — 
Nature  of  Our  Lord's  "  Sonship." — Human  Sonship  by 
Nature  and  by  Grace. — Appeal  to  Scripture. — Sonship  and 
the  Resurrection. — Error  of  Adoptionism. — Christ  Uni- 
versal Humanity. — God  the  Essence  of  Our  Personality. — 
Fate  of  Adoptionism 3O1 

CHAP.  XVI. — THE  CHRISTOLOGICAL  GOAL. — Christ  Truer 
than  Our  Science  of  Him. — The  Inductive  Method. — Christ 
the  Way  to  God. — The  Proper  Deity  of  the  Human  Jesus. 
— The  Logos  the  True  Personality  of  Men. — The  Kenosis. 
— The  Incarnation  Spiritual  not  Physical. — Theory  of  Self- 
depotentiation. — Theory  of  Progressive  Incarnation. — 
Soteriology  Dependent  on  Christology. — The  Sum  of 
Spiritual  Science 32° 


PREFACE. 

HE  present  volume  does  not  profess  to  be 
properly  a  history.  In  so  far  as  it  is  his- 
torical it  is  neither  critical  nor  original. 
It  deals  With  a  well-known  course  of 
events  the  story  of  which  it  was  neces- 
sary to  repeat,  but  only  with  the  ulterior  purpose  of 
tracing  the  evolution  of  a  process  of  thought.  It  is 
properly  an  historical  study  of  the  growth  and  forma- 
tion of  the  catholic  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ, — that  is  to  say  of  that  personal  union  of  the 
divine  and  human  in  our  Lord  which  makes  him  the 
supreme  object  of  our  spiritual  and  religious  interest. 
It  has  not  been  thought  best  therefore  to  prefix  a 
critical  historical  apparatus,  which  as  a  matter  of  fact 
has  not  been  used.  References  to  sources  of  infor- 
mation are  superfluous  in  this  well-worn  period,  and 
those  who  desire  such  can  easily  find  them  elsewhere. 
As  to  the  proper  subject-matter  it  is  hoped  that 
the  necessary  indebtedness  of  any  work  of  historical 
Christology  to  the  great  classic  of  Dr.  Dorner  has 
not  in  this  volume  been  anywhere  disguised.  But 
as  the  author's  obligation  has  been  probably  even 
more  through  a  long  general  familiarity  with  that 
high  authority  than  from  immediate  use  of  it,  it  is 
difficult  for  him  to  measure  its  exact  extent. 


x  Preface. 

The  aim  of  the  book  then  is  distinctly  Christologi- 
cal,  and  it  may  be  well  to  indicate  in  advance  some- 
thing of  its  point  of  view.  If  Jesus  Christ  is  what 
the  church  believes  him  to  be,  he  is  and  will  always 
be  very  much  more  in  himself  than  our  science  of 
him.  Christology  will  therefore  never  be  complete ; 
but  it  is  quite  complete  enough  to  convince  us  that 
there  is  a  truth  in  it  of  which  while  it  is  greater  than 
our  knowledge  we  may  yet  know  more  and  more. 
No  human  mind  can  grasp  the  unity  or  organic  whole 
of  nature,  yet  science  knows  that  nature  is  such  a 
whole  and  that  it  can  forever  approximate  to  it.  So 
the  church  knows  that  Jesus  Christ  stands  to  us  for 
a  fact  of  God  in  nature  and  in  humanity  of  which  it 
may  know  the  truth  although  it  can  forever  only  ap- 
proximate the  whole  truth.  There  is  no  question  to 
it  about  Christ,  the  only  question  is  of  our  Chris- 
tology,— to  what  extent  our  science  truly  represents 
and  expresses  him. 

There  is  everywhere  a  manifest  revival  of  Chris- 
tological  interest  and  discussion,  and  there  are  signs 
of  a  still  deeper  renewal  of  Christological  thought 
and  science.  A  religious  activity  more  earnest  as 
well  as  more  varied  and  conflicting  than  the  world 
has  known  for  a  long  time  presses  upon  us  with  ques- 
tions which  demand  both  historical  and  scientific 
treatment.  Especially  is  there  serious  and  long- 
standing confusion  with  regard  to  the  union  and 
relation  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  and  func- 
tions in  the  person  of  our  Lord.  Partial,  defective 
views  of  his  human  activities,  knowledge  and  power, 
— a  higher  or  psychical  Docetism, — characterize  our 


Preface.  xi 

current  theology.  If  we  are  to  study  these  questions 
anew  we  must  begin  by  going  back  to  the  past; 
but  we  must  not  expect  to  find  a  completed  and 
satisfactory  solution  of  them  in  past  thought,  because 
the  mind  of  Christendom  has  not  yet  fully  thought 
them  out.  We  must  accept  the  genuine  results  of  a 
former  science,  but  we  have  something  of  our  own 
to  add  to  those  results,  as  each  succeeding  age  will 
have  something  to  add  to  ours. 

W.  P.  Du  BOSE. 

UNIVERSITY  OF  THE  SOUTH, 
June  18,  1896. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

STUDY  of  the  period  of  the  great  coun- 
cils must  be  chiefly  a  study  of  the  great 
fact  or  truth  to  the  understanding  and  in- 
terpreting of  which  the  mind  and  life  of 
the  period  was  devoted.  Its  interest  must 
centre  in  the  task  that  was  undertaken  and  in  the 
results  that  were  attained.  Anything  else,  such  as 
the  personality  of  the  actors,  the  picturesqueness  of 
the  situations,  the  dramatic  movement  and  effect  of 
the  incidents  and  events,  must  be  kept  strictly  sub- 
ordinate ^nd  secondary  to  the  absorbing  interest  and 
importance  of  the  truth  involved.  For  this  truth,  if 
it  be  what  it  claims  to  be,  holds  in  it  the  life  and  the 
destiny  of  mankind. 

The  question  at  issue  was,  primarily,  simply  that 
of  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  because  Jesus 
Christ  is  at  once  the  most  divine  and  the  most  human 
fact  and  factor  in  the  history  and  experience  of  our 
race,  the  problem  of  his  person  became  at  once  the 
impulse  and  starting-point  of  an  entire  science  of 
God,  of  man,  and  of  the  essential  and  final  relation 
between  God  and  man. 

If  the  subject-matter  upon  which  the  councils  were 


The  Ecumenical  Councils. 


engaged  were  only  a  matter  of  human  speculation,  if 
the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  human  and  divine,  were 
a  creation  of  the  ethical  and  religious  idealizing  fac- 
ulty of  humanity,  the  period  would  still  possess,  in 
many  ways,  a  very  real  interest  for  us ;  but  it  would 
be  an  interest  so  infinitely  below  that  by  which  the 
age  believed  itself  to  be  actuated  that  in  comparison 
it  dwindles  into  nothing.  The  thought  and  life  of  the 
time  felt  itself  engaged  not  in  evolving  dreams  and 
speculations  of  its  own  but  in  striving  to  receive  and 
interpret  a  truth  which  was  true  before,  above,  and 
wholly  independently  of  it.  And  in  recalling  now 
its  interest,  its  labors,  and  its  attainments,  we  must 
remember  that  the  subject-matter  of  all  these  pre- 
ceded them,  and  was  in  itself  all  and  very  much 
more  than  all  that  they  were  able  to  see  or  reveal  of 
it.  It  is  necessary  therefore  that  we  should  not 
enter  upon  the  labors  of  our  period  without  first  con- 
templating the  fact  which  it  felt  itself  called  to  inter- 
pret, and  tracing  down  to  it  the  interpretation  that 
had  gone  before. 

It  were  perhaps  to  be  wished  that  we  could  go 
back  behind  all  records  or  impressions  upon  others 
of  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  form  from  himself 
a  judgment  of  him  for  ourselves.  The  effort  is  con- 
stantly being  made  to  do  something  like  this,  and 
perhaps  not  wholly  without  results.  What  was  he 
who  produced  not  this  or  that  particular  impression 
but  the  resultant  of  actual  and  permanent  impressions 
which  he  has  made  upon  the  world  ?  But  even  if  we 
could  make  for  ourselves  such  a  point  of  view,  the 
criticism  which  should  be  able  to  judge  of  Jesus, 


Qualification  for  Interpreting  Christ.      3 

when  thus  seen,  must  combine  in  itself  all  the  quali- 
fications necessary  for  seeing  and  understanding  all 
that  he  really  was.  There  is  a  possibility  of  that 
prepossession  or  prejudice  which  disqualifies  for  see- 
ing the  truth,  not  from  one  side  only,  but  from  the 
other  no  less.  Supposing  that  Jesus  were  a  personal 
manifestation  or  revelation  of  God,  visible  as  such, 
and  intended  to  be  visible  in  the  sphere  not  of  the 
natural  but  of  the  spiritual,  then  this  divine  in  him, 
if  it  was  to  be  seen"  and  heard  and  touched  and  han- 
dled, as  St.  John  said  it  was,  manifestly  could  not  be 
so  by  the  organs  of  sense  but  only  by  some  faculty 
of  spiritual  perception  or  apprehension.  To  say  that 
we  have  no  such  faculty,  and  that  either  there  is  no 
such  divine  to  be  apprehended  or  that  the  divine 
cannot  be  so  apprehended  by  us,  is  to  come  to  the 
inquiry  with  a  prepossession  which  disqualifies  for 
seeing  the  divine  in  Jesus  if  it  is  there.  No  mere 
natural  science,  no  matter  how  complete,  can  ever 
demonstrate  that  it  is  impossible  there  may  be  a 
personal  God,  or  that  he  may  manifest  himself  in 
the  measure  of  their  developed  capacities  to  personal 
spirits,  along  lines  other  than  those  of  the  senses  and 
by  methods  different  from  those  of  natural  observa- 
tion and  experience.  Christianity  holds  that  it  car- 
ries with  it  proofs  and  evidences  of  itself  which  are 
sufficient  for  itself,  and  which  in  no  wise  come  into 
conflict  with  any  science  save  that  which  carries  in 
it  the  prepossession  that  such  a  manifestation  of  the 
divine  in  the  human  is  impossible.  It  cannot  be  de- 
nied that,  if  there  be  in  Jesus  Christ  such  a  divine 
as  the  church  holds  there  is,  it  must  appeal  for  recog- 


The  Ecumenical  Councils. 


nition  to  such  a  divine  in  us,  or  organ  of  the  divine, 
as — not  contradicting  nature,  but  on  the  contrary 
completing  and  transfiguring  it — yet  lies  outside  of 
any  science  of  nature  which  on  principle  limits  itself 
to  the  information  of  the  senses.  If  therefore  such 
a  science  ignores  the  existence,  that  is  no  proof  of 
the  non-existence,  of  such  a  divine  in  our  Lord  and 
in  ourselves.  The  proof  of  it  must  in  the  very  nature 
of  it  lie  in  criteria  which  are  extrascientific,  and  to 
such  we  make  our  appeal,  trusting  that  the  definite- 
ness  and  certainty  of  the  response  will  testify  to  its 
truth. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  validity  and  the  value  of 
such  reflections  will  depend  upon  the  success  with 
which  we  apply  to  the  question  of  the  person  of  our 
Lord  such  not  merely  natural  but  spiritual  criteria 
and  tests  as  we  maintain  have  more  or  less  both  impli- 
citly and  explicitly  been  applied  to  it  and  have  with 
more  or  less  completeness  determined  and  settled  it. 

In  reviewing  the  question  of  the  person  of  Christ, 
we  too  will  endeavor  to  get  behind  the  records  and 
see  him  as  he  must  have  been  in  himself. 

The  actual  or  historical  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  in  view 
of  what  he  has  become  in  the  world,  has  never  been 
seriously  appraised  lower  than  as  the  one  who  has  in 
its  history  best  realized  in  himself  the  ethical  and 
spiritual  ideal  of  human  nature,  life,  and  destiny. 
He  is  not  less  but  more  human  than  others,  by  how 
much  more  than  others  he  has  sounded  all  the  depths 
and  heights  of  humanity,  and  brought  to  actuality  in 
himself  all  that  is  potential  but  incomplete  in  others. 
The  actual  Jesus  was  indeed  the  most  human  of 


Christ  as  Ethical  and  Religious  Ideal.      5 

men ;  and  we  get  farther  and  farther  away  from  him, 
as  well  as  from  any  real  and  saving  hold  upon  the 
divine  realized  in  him,  the  farther  we  get  in  any 
direction  from  the  reality  of  his  humanity. 

In  the  first  place,  the  moral  ideal  which  the  world 
has  recognized  in  Jesus  Christ  it  has  found  primarily 
not  in  his  teaching  but  in  himself.  And  that  ideal  is 
not  different  in  him  from  what  it  is  in  others  except 
in  degree.  In  even  the  heathen  world,  Zeno  and 
Epictetus  and  Marcus  Aurelius  were  at  work  upon  a 
practical  theory  of  life  and  conduct  not  different  in 
principle  or  kind  from  his.  And  the  moral  maxims 
of  our  Lord  were  not  a  revelation,  or  ought  not  to 
have  been  such,  to  those  who  had  been  trained  for 
centuries  under  the  law  which  he  came  not  to  destroy 
but  to  fulfil.  The  principle  of  the  cross  itself  was  not 
a  novelty.  It  had  its  truth  for  him  only  as  it  has, 
and  has  always  had,  its  truth  for  all.  If  he  has  made 
it  the  necessary  and  universal  and  everlasting  sym- 
bol of  all  highest  human  motive  and  action,  it  is  only 
because  in  itself  and  everywhere  self-sacrificing  love 
is  the  sole  highest  motive  and  action,  not  only  for 
human  but  for  all  possible  spiritual  and  free  beings, 
including  God  himself.  And  as  the  actual  Jesus  had 
no  other  morality  than  that  of  men,  so  he  attained  its 
heights  by  no  other  path  than  theirs.  If  he  became 
the  perfect  man,  he  was  made  perfect  by  the  things 
he  suffered.  He  was  tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we 
are,  and  his  endurance,  his  courage,  his  faith,  his  vic- 
tory, his  peace  and  joy  in  overcoming,  have  nothing 
in  them  that  we  cannot  know  and  understand. 

If  we  see  in  Jesus  not  merely   the   ethical  but 


The  Ecumenical  Councils. 


the  religious  ideal  of  humanity,  just  as  little  was  his 
religion  as  his  morality  essentially  different  from 
that  of  all  men.  It  was  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
the  religion  of  a  perfect  faith,  a  perfect  hope,  and  a 
perfect  love  toward  God  and  toward  man.  All 
that  was  different  from  others  was  that  in  him  it  was 
perfect  in  all  these.  And  not  only  was  his  faith  ours, 
but  it  was  a  faith  which  had  fought  and  conquered 
our  doubts,  difficulties,  and  fears;  it  had  known  the 
"  conflict  with  despair,"  and  had  overcome  through 
the  laying  hold  upon  him  who  alone  was  able  to  save 
him  as  well  as  us.  There  is  no  spiritual  aspiration 
in  any  religion  of  any  race,  no  feeling  anywhere  after 
God  if  haply  it  might  find  him,  that  has  not  in  it  the 
essential  principle  of  the  perfect  religion  of  him  who 
has  felt  in  himself  all  human  want  and  aspiration,  and 
found  in  God  all  human  satisfaction  and  fulfilment. 

In  Jesus  Christ  religion  and  morality  are  not  two 
things  but  one.  It  is  the  nature  of  man  to  fulfil 
himself  not  by  conformity  to  abstract  laws  but  by 
union  with  living  persons.  In  our  earthly  relations 
it  is  not  the  father's  authority  and  law  enforced  and 
obeyed,  but  his  personal  spirit  communicated  and  re- 
ceived, that  informs  and  shapes  the  character  and  per- 
sonality of  the  son.  And  in  the  larger  home  and 
life  of  our  universal  and  eternal  relationships  it  is 
not  obedience  to  natural  or  divine  laws  that  perfects 
us,  but  the  personal  Spirit  of  God  filling  us  and 
fulfilling  himself  in  us,  and  so  enabling  us  to  fulfil 
ourselves  in  him.  Not  by  works  of  the  law,  but  by 
the  Spirit  that  works  through  a  holy  faith,  love  and 
obedience  wrought  in  us,  are  we  saved. 


Christ  more  than  an  Ideal  of  Humanity.    7 

But  there  is  nothing  more  certain  than  that  what- 
ever was  the  human  ethical  or  religious  character 
attained  and  manifested  by  our  Lord,  it  is  not  to  that 
that  we  can  attribute  the  immediate  origin  or  the 
permanent  success  of  Christianity  as  a  gospel,  or 
rather  as  the  gospel ;  for  from  its  first  proclamation 
it  never  called  or  considered  itself  anything  less  than 
this.  It  was  just  its  unqualified  and  unhesitating 
claim  to  absoluteness  and  universality  as  such  that 
gave  it  its  indestructible  vitality  and  success.  If  it 
had  faltered  for  one  moment  in  the  completeness  of 
its  claim,  and  consented  to  be  an  ethical  system,  a 
philosophy,  or  even  a  religion,  it  would  never  have 
become  what  it  is.  It  was  necessary  that  it  should 
be  everything  or  nothing.  And  all  this  needs  some- 
thing more  to  account  for  it  than  the  personal  virtue 
or  piety  of  even  a  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  No  matter  how 
truly  and  perfectly  he  thought  and  taught  and  lived, 
it  is  impossible  to  find  in  that  anything  to  make  his 
life  and  person  a  gospel  to  the  world  in  the  sense  in 
which  it  claimed  to  be,  and  actually  became,  such. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  not  the  perfection 
merely  of  our  Lord's  teaching  or  character  that  was 
the  primitive  gospel.  Christianity  came  with  a  burst 
of  joy  and  gladness  and  hope  and  power,  all  of 
which  betokened  that  something  had  come  to  pass 
which  no  saint  or  sage  could  have  accomplished. 
What  it  was,  was  no  less  than  this :  that  Jesus  Christ 
had  abolished  sin  and  death,  and  that  in  him  was  to 
be  preached  to  all  the  world  the  remission  of  sin  and 
resurrection  from  death.  Such  a  gospel,  in  the  nature 
of  it,  could  not  be  from  man,  but  only  of  God ;  and 


8  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

that  nothing  less  than  this  could  have  been  its  origi- 
nal proclamation  is  proof  that  there  must  have  been 
in  Jesus  the  claim  of  something  higher  than  truth  in 
his  teaching,  or  holiness  in  his  life.  What  this  some- 
thing higher  was  will  only  gradually  appear,  but  it 
may  be  seen  already  that  it  must  consist  in  some 
unique  relation  as  well  to  God  as  to  man,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  we  are  able  to  recognize  in  him  not 
only  a  work  of  God  wrought  in  man,  but — potentially 
at  least  and  virtually,  if  not  yet  actually — an  entirely 
new  relation  of  all  men  to  God.  In  other  words, 
what  is  involved  in  the  claim  of  the  gospel  from  the 
beginning,  and  what  makes  it  the  gospel,  is  that  in 
the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  there  is  manifested  the 
essential  truth,  and  the  whole  truth,  of  God  to  man 
and  man  to  God.  The  one  aspect  requires  his  God- 
head, and  the  other  his  manhood — both  in  a  sense 
and  to  an  extent  which  it  has  been,  and  will  be  for- 
ever, the  occupation  and  the  joy  of  the  church  to 
endeavor  to  receive  and  to  define.  This  much,  and 
no  less,  we  claim  for  the  Christ  of  whom  Christianity 
is  the  product  and  the  expression.  We  may  have 
no  direct  means  now  of  judging  him,  but  we  can 
judge  it,  and  from  only  such  a  source  can  have  come 
such  a  stream. 

When  we  pass  from  such  a  priori  considerations  of 
the  person  of  our  Lord  to  the  impressions  actually 
produced  by  him  and  the  records  that  remain  of  him, 
it  may  be  well  to  dwell  for  a  moment  upon  the  part 
which  the  Old  Testament  writings  played  in  prede- 
termining these  impressions  and  giving  form  to  their 
expression.  Christianity  is  quite  able  and  ready  to 


Relation  of  Christ  to  Old  Testament.      9 

rest  its  claims  upon  itself,  and  its  truth  is  not  neces- 
sarily bound  up  with  that  of  any  antecedent  history 
or  historical  records.  But  it  is  a  part  of  its  claim  to 
truth  in  the  natural  as  well  as  in  the  spiritual  order, 
that  it  came  not  without  preparation  throughout  all 
the  previous  course  of  the  world.  Indeed,  if  Chris- 
tianity is  the  truest,  it  must  also  be  the  most  natural 
thing  in  the  world,  and  only  truest  because  most 
natural.  Its  claim  is  not  to  be  a  spiritual  instead  of 
a  natural,  but  a  spiritual  which  is  the  truth  and  the 
fulfilment  of  the  natural  order.  "  There  is  a  spiritual, 
and  there  is  a  natural.  Howbeit  that  is  not  first  which 
is  spiritual,  but  that  which  is  natural ;  and  afterward 
that  which  is  spiritual."  Each  in  its  order,  and  the 
higher  not  the  contradiction  and  destruction,  but  the 
realization  and  completion,  of  the  lower :  "  I  am  not 
come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil."  The  natural  creation 
itself  has  passed  through  the  successive  stages  or 
orders  of  the  mineral,  the  vegetable,  the  animal,  and 
the  human.  And  human  history,  in  entering  into 
personal  relation  and  union  with  the  personal  divine, 
and  so  becoming  spiritual,  in  contradistinction  from 
its  merely  immanent  relation  to  God  in  nature,  is  not 
thereby  contradicting  either  nature  or  its  own  nature, 
but  only  fulfilling  both.  So  in  reality  the  truth  of 
Christianity  is  not  only  true  for  all  time  to  come,  but 
it  was  true  in  all  time  before.  It  is  part,  and  highest 
part,  of  the  truth  not  only  of  the  world  but  of  the 
universe.  It  makes  no  difference  for  our  present  pur- 
pose what  we  think  of  the  Bible,  or  how  we  define 
prophecy.  After  all  that  has  been  or  can  be  said, 
the  fact  remains  that  the  Old  Testament  history  did 


io  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

prepare  the  way  for  Christ  and  the  gospel.  The  New 
Testament  was  latent  in  the  Old,  and  the  Old  became 
patent  in  the  New.  All  that  was  essential  was  that  the 
preparation  should  prepare  and  that  the  fulfilment 
should  fulfil.  Both  did  so;  the  end  was  attained; 
we  may  let  the  rest  go.  But  to  us  it  is  of  no  little 
interest  and  profit  to  possess  and  to  study  the  rec- 
ords of  how,  by  the  natural  method  of  a  progressive 
spiritual  evolution,  the  needs  and  wants,  the  hopes 
and  expectations,  were  formed  and  trained  in  the  old 
order  under  the  law,  that  were  to  be  filled  and 
satisfied  in  the  new  under  the  gospel ;  just  as  we 
recognize  now  in  every  true  natural  human  life,  not 
a  negation  or  contradiction  of  the  spiritual,  but  a 
thousand  incompletenesses,  wants,  dissatisfactions,  and 
aspirations,  which  will  find  their  satisfaction  only  in 
the  spiritual.  Divine  redemption  from  sin  and  death 
was  as  much  the  hope  and  promise  of  the  first 
as  it  was  the  realization  of  the  final  dispensation. 
And  we  may  add  that  it  is  as  much  the  funda- 
mental need  and  longing  of  the  truly  natural  as  it 
is  the  fulfilment  and  satisfaction  of  the  truly  spirit- 
ual man.  The  Old  Testament  was  the  divine  prep- 
aration of  the  natural  for  the  spiritual,  and  it  is 
nothing  against  the  divine  origin  and  character  of 
Christianity  that  only  Jews,  with  heads  and  hearts 
full  of  Messianic  ideas  and  hopes,  were  prepared  first 
to  recognize  the  Christ  and  welcome  the  gospel. 

When  we  come  to  the  question  of  what  were  the 
earliest  and  most  authentic  records  of  our  Lord  which 
have  come  down  to  us,  what  was  the  first  gospel  or 
written  description  of  his  person  and  work,  here  again, 


The  Primitive  Gospel.  n 

while  the  question  can  never  be  answered  to  the 
satisfaction  of  all  the  literary  and  critical  interests 
involved  in  it,  quite  enough  may  be  well  known  for 
our  present  purpose.  It  is  impossible  to  reduce  the 
primitive  gospel  to  any  minimum  of  what  is  contained 
in  our  synoptic  gospels  which  will  not  include  all  that 
is  sufficient  to  make  that  minimum  the  gospel.  And 
to  call  anything  the  primitive  gospel  which  did  not 
contain  in  it  implicitly  and  in  germ  all  that  has  en- 
titled the  later  gospel  to  be  called  a  gospel  at  all  is 
an  historical  contradiction.  To  say  that  the  sum  of 
what  was  in  our  Lord,  and  in  the  first  impressions 
that  he  made  upon  his  followers,  and  in  their  first 
records  of  him,  was  that  he  was  a  good  man  and  a 
great  teacher,  through  whom  the  world  learned 
more  clearly  than  before  what  virtue  and  godliness 
are,  is  simply  to  disconnect  the  origin  of  Christianity, 
and  Christianity  itself,  from  Christ  and  his  original 
disciples  and  the  original  documents.  That  was  not 
the  Christianity  that  burst  upon  the  world  with  an 
initial  force  and  truth  which  was  the  secret  of  its,  final 
and  permanent  success.  That  Christianity  included 
in  it  indeed  the  conviction  of  the  human  spiritual 
and  moral  perfection  of  Jesus;  but  it  saw  in  that 
human  virtue  and  godliness  nothing  less  than  man's 
atonement  with  God,  redemption  from  sin,  and  resur- 
rection from  death.  This  divine  and  universal  sig- 
nificance of  himself,  and  of  what  he  was  and  accom- 
plished as  a  man,  was  a  part  and  an  inseparable  part 
of  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  himself.  It  is  not  only 
that  St.  John  says,  "  He  was  manifested  to  take  away 
sins ;  and  in  him  is  no  sin.  Whosoever  abideth  in  him 


12  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

sinneth  not."  It  is  not  only  that  St.  Paul  says  every- 
where that  in  him  God  has  abolished  sin,  and  with  it 
death.  It  is  not  only  that  the  apostles  went  out  at 
the  very  first  to  preach  in  him  remission  of  sin  and 
resurrection  from  death.  It  is  not  only  that  baptism 
into  him  meant  all  this  or  meant  nothing  at  all.  It  is 
that  you  cannot  separate  from  the  personal  conscious- 
ness of  Jesus  Christ  himself  the  sense  and  the  know- 
ledge that  he  was  come  to  be  something  from  God  to 
the  world,  which  the  church  after  him  might  insuffi- 
ciently receive  and  understand,  but  can  never  over- 
estimate or  exaggerate.  Any  most  primitive  repre- 
sentation of  Jesus  includes  in  it,  beyond  the  evidences 
of  his  sweet  reasonableness  and  humanness,  an  ele- 
ment of  power  and  authority  to  which  there  is  no 
natural  limit,  and  which  must  be  recognized  in  its  full 
extent  by  one  who  would  wholly  know  him.  The 
developed  Gospel  of  St.  John  carries  this  egovoia  to  the 
point  of  quickening  the  dead,  conferring  the  divine 
life,  and  being  the  final  Judge  and  Saviour  of  men. 
St.  Paul  regards  him  as  the  second  Adam  in  whom 
humanity  comes  to  spiritual  or  divine  life,  as  in  the 
first  Adam  it  came  to  earthly  and  natural  life.  The 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  sees  in  him  the  high  priest  in 
whom  humanity  has  through  death  consummated  its 
relation  to  God  and  entered  within  the  veil.  The 
synoptics  themselves  bring  their  story  to  the  point  at 
which  all  power  is  given  to  him  in  heaven  and  earth, 
and  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  are  to  be  baptized 
into  his  name.  But  if  we  go  back  behind  all  these 
to  the  indisputable  spiritual  attitude  and  claim  of 
Jesus,  we  too  shall  find  all  that  was  subsequently 


Christ's  Authority.  13 

developed  out  of  it  already  contained  in  it.  When 
he  taught  it  was  with  the  authority  of  the  law  itself, 
and  not  merely  of  one  under  the  law.  He  himself 
indeed  humanly  obeyed  and  fulfilled  the  law,  but  he 
did  it  in  a  way  to  appear  more  the  law  fulfilling  itself 
in  a  human  obedience  than  a  merely  human  obedience 
fulfilling  the  law.  The  church  sees  in  him,  indeed, 
both  the  divine  law  and  the  human  obedience — the 
divine  will  incarnate  in  human  life ;  and  our  Lord's 
own  attitude  sustains  both.  He  is  the  law  which  he 
obeys. 

When  we  turn  from  the  authority  of  his  teaching 
to  that  of  his  working,  there  is  a  point  of  view  from 
which  it  almost  seems  a  lowering  of  our  Lord's  spir- 
itual and  moral  attitude  that  he  should  have  descended 
to  work  what  are  called  "  miracles."  Was  he  not 
higher  as  himself  embodying  the  law — the  eternal  na- 
ture and  truth  of  things — than  as  seemingly  violating 
its  sanctity  and  consistency  ?  But,  without  attempt- 
ing at  this  time  an  explanation,  how  plain  it  is  that  our 
Lord  himself  regarded  the  miracles  as  accidental  and 
subordinate  to  the  real  and  permanent  purpose  of  his 
mission  and  ministry !  In  the  first  place,  the  works 
of  healing  are  with  him  always  not  so  much  acts  of 
power  as  of  compassion ;  the  explanation  given  of 
them  is  that  "  himself  bore  our  sorrows  and  carried 
our  griefs."  And  in  the  second  place  the  real  object 
of  his  compassion  is  conspicuously  not  the  fruit  of 
suffering  in  the  body,  but  the  root  of  sin  in  the  soul. 
He  says  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  "  Son,  thy  sins  be 
forgiven  thee."  The  bodily  healings  were  with  him 
but  as  parables  or  signs  of  that  spiritual  healing  which 


14  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

was  to  be  his  real  and  permanent  work  in  the  world. 
They  were  wrought  that  through  them  we  might 
"know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  power  on  earth  to 
forgive  and  to  heal  sin."  The  blind  saw,  the  deaf 
heard,  the  lame  walked,  the  lepers  were  cleansed,  the 
dead  arose,  all  as  illustrations  of  a  redemption,  a  res- 
urrection, which  is  preached  to  every  human  being  in 
him.  All  this  he  wrought,  indeed,  as  Son  of  man.  He 
preaches  and  imparts  nothing  to  us  as  men  which  he 
was  not  himself  as  man.  But  he  was  the  man  he  was, 
and  we  shall  be  the  men  we  shall  be  in  him,  because 
it  was  God  who  was  incarnate  in  him  in  order  that 
through  him  he  may  become  incarnate  in  us.  There 
is  no  primitive  gospel  according  to  which  Jesus  Christ 
is  himself  personally  dead.  In  all  he  is  alive,  to  be 
himself  personally  present  in  every  man — the  per- 
sonal principle  in  him  of  his  own  communicated  holi- 
ness and  his  own  imparted  life. 

What  theory  of  the  nature  and  of  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  necessarily  involved  in  such  an  origi- 
nal conception  of  the  effects  produced  by  him,  and 
the  abiding  and  influential  relations  borne  by  him  to 
the  whole  human  race,  may  not  yet  be  present  in 
the  minds  or  apparent  in  the  testimony  of  the  first 
evangelists.  But  there  is  one  remarkable  assertion 
that  may  certainly  be  ventured  upon  without  fear  of 
controversy.  If  we  take  our  gospels  as  they  stand, 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  synoptics  on  one  side 
and  St.  John  on  the  other  regard  the  person  of  our 
Lord  from  opposite  points  of  view.  The  one  see  him 
primarily  as  human,  and  the  other  sees  him  as  divine  ; 
and  the  human  of  the  former  is  as  thoroughgoing  and 


The  Divine  and  the  Human  in  Christ.    1 5 

complete  as  the  divine  of  the  latter ;  the  Jesus  of  the 
synoptics  is  as  simply,  naturally,  tragically  human  as 
the  incarnate  Word  of  St.  John  is  divine.  But  there 
is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  synoptical  representation 
of  the  human  character  and  consciousness  of  Jesus 
which  unfits  it  or  renders  it  inadequate  for  St.  John's 
conception  of  it  as  a  divine  incarnation ;  and  equally 
there  is  nothing  in  St.  John's  representation  of  an  in- 
carnation of  the  eternal  Word  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
which  contradicts  or  impairs  the  reality  or  the  com- 
pleteness of  his  humanity  as  portrayed  by  the  synop- 
tics. On  the  contrary,  the  humanity  is  the  wholly 
adequate  and  congruous  expression  and  manifesta- 
tion of  the  divinity,  and  the  divinity  is  the  necessary 
and  the  only  explanation  and  account  of  the  human- 
ity. The  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  is  not  revealed 
outside  of  but  in  and  by  his  humanity.  The  very 
truth  and  design  of  the  incarnation  is  the  realiza- 
tion and  revelation  of  God  in  man ;  and  the  Godhead 
is  manifest  not  in  the  non-naturalness  but  in  the 
higher  and  truer  naturalness  of  the  manhood.  God 
incarnate,  that  is  to  say,  Godhead  in  manhood,  would 
not  and  could  not  assume  any  other  form  than  that 
of  the  divinely  human  and  humanly  divine  personality 
and  personal  life  of  Jesus  Christ.  Any  other  would 
have  been  either  less  human  or  less  divine,  and  there- 
fore less  both.  The  constant  disposition  and  effort 
to  make  our  Lord  more  divine  by  making  him  less 
human  tends  only  to  reduce  the  incarnation  to  a 
semblance  and  an  unreality.  On  the  other  hand, 
when  it  is  attempted  to  make  him  less  divine  by 
making  him  more  human,  we  need  not  fear,  but  may 


1 6  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

even  welcome,  the  result  of  the  experiment.  When 
even  with  hostile  intent  criticism  emphasizes  the  very 
and  entire  humanness  of  the  Jesus  of  the  synoptics, 
not  merely  of  his  body  and  its  natural  affections  but 
also  of  his  mind  and  consciousness,  and  of  his  will  and 
character  and  life — when  it  represents  his  virtue  as 
consisting,  like  ours,  of  a  free  human  will  and  a  sweet 
human  reasonableness,  and  even  his  godliness  as 
being,  like  ours,  the  gift  to  him  of  the  divine  grace 
through  his  human  faith — let  us  remember  that  these 
things  cannot  be  too  much  emphasized,  that  by  how 
much  he  lacked  any  part  of  them  he  fell  short  of 
being  a  man,  and  his  humanity  of  being  a  real  and  a 
complete  incarnation.  Jesus  Christ  wholly  revealed 
God  in  that  he  was  and  not  otherwise  than  as  he 
was  the  divine  revelation  of  the  whole  nature,  life, 
and  destiny  of  man.  As  such  he  is  the  divine  and 
the  whole,  as  well  of  every  man  as  of  all  humanity. 
And  all  this  is  not  only  expressed  explicitly  in  the 
developed  doctrinal  or  theological  system  of  St.  Paul 
or  St.  John ;  it  is  contained  implicitly  in  the  con- 
stitution of  his  own  divine-human  personality,  as  in 
the  impression  he  made  upon  others  and  in  the  earliest 
records  others  have  left  of  him. 

The  certain  and  indisputable  first  recorded  im- 
pression of  Jesus  Christ  was  thus  that  of  one  who 
indeed  was  man,  but  such  a  man  as  that  humanity 
was  become  in  him  a  new  thing ;  and  new,  not  in  the 
sense  of  ceasing  to  be  itself  or  human  but  in  the 
sense  of  now  for  the  first  time  truly  becoming  itself 
or  divine.  For  it  was  ^ust  the  truth  of  humanity  that 
it  was  constituted  for  and  so  predestined  to  what 


Divinely  Human  and  Hiimanly  Divine.   1 7 

St.  Paul  afterward  called  iiodeoia,  or  divine  sonship. 
That  is  to  say,  it  was  its  nature  to  be  taken  into 
participation  with  the  divine  nature  and  life ;  it  was 
made  for  God,  and  could  complete  itself  or  be  com- 
pleted only  in  personal  fellowship  of  nature  and  life 
with  the  personal  God.  If  the  first  religious  con- 
sciousness saw  in  Jesus  rather  a  manhood  which  real- 
izes and  attains  itself  in  the  Godhead,  while  the  later 
is  disposed  to  reverse  the  process,  and  see  in  him  God 
who  fulfils  himself  in  humanity,  and  so  in  individual 
men,  this  is  but  as  it  should  be.  The  truth  of  either 
side  does  not  contradict  that  of  the  other,  but  on 
the  contrary  the  impairing  of  either  truth  impairs 
the  other.  The  fact  of  the  case  was  that  the  human 
of  the  earlier  consciousness  was  such  as  not  merely  to 
truly  and  adequately  embody  and  express  the  divine 
of  the  later,  but  to  be  only  by  it  truly  and  adequately 
explained  and  accounted  for.  Out  of  this  inevitably 
arose  the  question,  Was  this  a  divine  become  human 
or  a  human  become  divine?  And  if  the  answer  was, 
as  it  must  be,  that  it  was  both,  then  follows  the  fur- 
ther question,  Which  of  the  two  was  first  and  cause 
of  the  other?  The  decision  of  the  church  was  that 
in  Jesus  Christ  man  was  become  divine  because  God 
was  become  man.  If  in  reaching  this  decision  there 
was  a  wavering  or  a  temporary  lingering  on  the  way, 
and  if  even  within  the  New  Testament  Scriptures 
there  can  be  found  at  any  point  evidence  of  such 
halting,  there  is  nothing  in  this  inconsistent  with  the 
character  either  of  the  Scriptures  or  of  the  truth. 

The  gospel  of  Antioch  and  that  of  Jerusalem,  to 
the  Gentiles  and  to  the  Jews,  of  St.  Paul  and  of  the 


1 8  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 


original  apostles,  have  been  contrasted  and  opposed, 
even  to  the  point  of  making  them  two  gospels.  St. 
Paul  does  indeed  say  "  my  gospel,"  and  that  as 
against  a  narrower  and  exclusive  gospel  which  would 
place  or  magnify  barriers  in  the  way  of  the  universal 
extension  of  the  free  gift  and  impartation  of  God  to 
humanity  in  Jesus  Christ.  There  was  in  the  nature 
of  things  an  inevitable  strain  and  conflict  involved 
in  the  transition  from  the  exclusiveness  of  Judaism  to 
the  universality  of  Christianity.  To  wipe  out  dis- 
tinctions and  make  Jew  and  Gentile  one  body  in 
Christ  was  a  task  of  which  it  would  be  difficult  to 
exaggerate  the  practical  and  actual  difficulties.  We 
may  concede  the  existence  through  it  of  strained 
relations  among  the  apostles  themselves.  But  the 
strain  was  endured,  and  the  catholic  church  embraced 
in  its  one  bosom  both  parties,  without  the  sacrifice  of 
anything  vital  in  the  faith  or  practice  of  either.  That 
the  controversy  did  not  involve  any  distinctive  or 
essential  point  of  Christianity  itself,  but  turned  upon 
issues  wholly  outside  of  it,  became  clear  enough  as 
soon  as  it  was  all  over.  Upon  what  constitutes  the 
gospel  there  is  neither  in  Scripture  nor  in  tradition 
the  slightest  charge  or  suspicion  of  difference  or 
contradiction.  The  apostles  from  Jerusalem  preached 
a  risen  and  living  Christ,  present  by  his  Spirit  in  the 
church,  and  taking  men  up  into  the  grace  and  power 
of  his  redemption  from  sin  and  his  resurrection  from 
death.  They  were  too  much  as  yet  taken  up  with 
the  fact  and  their  experience  of  it  to  go  on  into  any 
rationale  of  their  divine  salvation.  And,  dealing  with 
Jews,  the  inevitable  question  did  not  come  up  with 


The  Law  and  the  Gospel.  19 

them  of  the  relation  of  their  new  faith  to  their  old 
principles  and  habits  of  thought  and  life.  Absorbed 
in  the  former,  the  latter  continued  along  with  it  with- 
out any  thought  on  their  part  of  incongruity  or  incon- 
sistency. Yet  there  is  no  question  that  Christianity, 
while  in  one  sense  it  fulfils  and  completes,  in  another 
sense  supplants  and  displaces  Judaism  by  a  distinct 
change  of  principle.  To  St.  Paul  as  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles  fell  the  painful  task  of  cutting  Christianity 
loose  from  all  trammels  of  Judaism  and  of  exposing 
their  irreconcilable  difference  and  contrast.  He  resisted 
to  the  death  the  claim  for  the  continuance  of  the  rite 
of  circumcision  because  he  saw  in  it  a  principle  of 
legalism  which  he  deemed  it  of  the  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity not  merely  to  leave  behind  but  to  exchange 
for  a  directly  opposite  principle.  The  other  apostles 
may  very  well  not  have  so  seen  it  or  so  clearly  seen 
it ;  and  to  the  Jewish  Christians  generally  his  radical 
and  revolutionary  attitude  to  the  ancient  law  would 
amply  justify  all  that  he  suffered  at  their  hands. 

St.  Paul  did  not  suffer  too  much,  nor  did  he  at- 
tach too  much  consequence  to  the  principle  at  stake, 
since — although  he  alone  at  the  time  may  have  seen 
it — the  principle  was  indeed  the  essential  and  vital 
one  of  Christianity,  and  to  his  sufferings  for  it  we 
are  indebted  for  his  thorough  analysis  and  exposi- 
tion of  it.  The  law  and  the  gospel  represent  two 
aspects  or  relations  of  human  life  that  are  neither 
more  nor  less  mutually  exclusive  or  contradictory 
than  the  world  and  God  or  nature  and  grace.  It 
was  necessary  in  human  history  as  in  human  life 
that  each  in  its  order  should  be  developed  into  con- 


2O  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

sciousness,  that  they  should  then  be  contrasted  and 
opposed,  and  that  finally  they  should  be  reconciled 
and  combined.  The  principle  of  the  law  is  that  man 
cannot  be  fulfilled  otherwise  than  by  himself;  the 
principle  of  the  gospel  is  that  man  is  fulfilled  only  in 
and  through  God.  The  question  indeed  does  not 
end  there ;  given  that  man  cannot  be  free  or  complete 
in  himself  alone  but  only  in  God,  does  he  complete 
himself  in  God  or  does  God  alone  complete  him  ?  At 
every  point  the  answer  is  that  both  sides  are  true. 

It  was  the  genius  of  Hebrew  culture  because  it  was 
its  divine  mission  to  develop  the  principle  of  moral 
obedience.  Its  contribution  to  the  thought  and  life 
of  the  world  was  its  conception  of  personal,  national, 
human  righteousness.  Its  God  has  been  defined  as 
"  the  power,  not  ourselves,  that  makes  for  righteous- 
ness." Its  dream  and  prophecy  of  the  future  was  a  new 
heaven  and  a  new  earth  wherein  should  be  realized 
its  moral  ideal  of  a  universal  righteousness.  Doubt- 
less this  is  the  first  of  truths  for  the  free  spirit.  Kant 
did  not  emphasize  too  strongly  either  the  fact  of  the 
moral  law  or  the  autonomy  of  the  human  will.  Man 
can  only  be  himself  by  himself  fulfilling  his  law — and 
his  whole  law.  Righteousness  is  his  sole  end,  his 
only  redemption,  completion  and  salvation  ;  and  only 
he  can  be  or  do  his  own  righteousness,  for  righteous- 
ness is  essentially  a  personal  act  or  habit  and  cannot 
in  the  nature  of  it  be  merely  natural  or  impersonal 
or  passive.  It  has  been  well  said  that  the  truth  of 
the  Old  Testament  is,  No  salvation  but  righteous- 
ness ;  of  the  New,  No  righteousness  but  Christ.  If 
the  last  and  greatest  of  the  prophets  just  before  the 


Truth  is  Polar.  21 

coming  of  our  Lord  repeated  the  cry  of  the  old  dis- 
pensation, it  was  given  to  St.  Paul  after  his  coming, 
at  least  most  clearly  and  decisively  of  all,  to  utter  the 
voice  of  the  new.  It  is  only  one  who  can  see  and 
combine  the  truth  expressed  in  opposites  who  can 
understand  that  the  declaration  that  man  can  only  be 
saved  by  his  own  obedience  is  not  contradicted  by 
the  other  declaration  that  man  cannot  be  saved  by 
his  own  obedience.  We  shall  not  understand  all  the 
meaning  of  salvation  in  Christ  until  we  have  learned 
the  whole  of  two  truths,  each  of  which  has  opposite 
sides  which  must  equally  and  wholly  be  held.  The 
first  is  that  Jesus  Christ  is  equally  God  who  by  a 
divine  incarnation  fulfils  himself  in  man,  and  man 
who  by  a  human  faith  and  obedience  realizes  himself 
in  God.  The  second  is  that  Jesus  Christ  is  equally 
an  objective  human  righteousness  or  self-realization 
or  salvation,  presented  to  our  faith  and  made  ours  by 
the  divine  grace,  and  a  subjective  human  righteous- 
ness appropriated,  made  our  own,  and  wrought  in  us 
through  our  own  obedience.  We  have  only  to  reflect 
for  a  moment  to  see  that  if  the  divine  becoming  in  us 
is  to  be  at  the  expense  of  our  own  becoming,  if  we 
are  to  have  God  at  the  expense  of  losing  instead  of 
truly  finding  and  completing  ourselves,  the  salvation 
will  not  be  that  of  Christ  and  Christianity. 

St.  Paul  then  no  more  than  our  Lord  himself  was 
set  for  the  destruction  but  rather  for  the  true  and  only 
fulfilling  of  the  law.  But  his  mission  was  to  stand 
for  righteousness  or  salvation  not  as  it  is  through 
obedience  or  the  law  but  as  it  is  not  through  these; 
not  as  we  work  it  but  as  God  has  wrought  it  for  us 


22  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

and  works  it  in  us.  Just  as  one  might  stand  for  the 
divine  in  Christ  and  not  the  human  and  yet  not  deny 
the  human  but  if  need  be  stand  for  it  too,  as  it 
might  seem  to  some,  against  the  divine ;  so  one  might 
be  set  for  the  denial  of  the  possibility  of  righteous- 
ness through  human  obedience  alone  without  deny- 
ing that  a  righteousness  from  God  and  by  grace  can 
only  exist  for  us  and  in  us  as  a  true  and  free  human 
obedience.  It  is  as  true  in  its  place  to  say  that  God 
alone  without  us  cannot  make  us  righteous  as  it  is  to 
say  that  we  ourselves  without  God  cannot  be  right- 
eous. But  St.  Paul  was  standing  for  the  "second  and 
if  to  many  he  seems  to  contradict  the  first  it  is  only 
seeming.  In  reality  he  knows  as  much  that  the  ma- 
terial cause  and  condition  of  our  righteousness  is 
our  own  being  righteous  and  doing  righteously  as 
he  knows  that  the  efficient  and  producing  cause  of 
our  righteousness  is  the  grace  and  power  and  new 
creation  of  God  in  Christ  working  through  our  faith. 
His  so-called  one-sidedness  exists  only  for  those  who 
do  not  know  the  whole  of  him  and  it  contradicted 
neither  the  other-sidedness  of  the  apostles  who  were 
before  him  nor  the  both-sidedness  of  the  catholic 
church  which  came  after  him. 

When  we  pass  on  to  the  Christ  and  the  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  St.  John  it  is  impossible  to  deny  or  ignore 
the  difference  of  point  of  view  or  representation.  If 
acknowledging  this  and  not  venturing  to  account  for 
it  we  still  affirm,  underneath  all  the  differences,  the 
identity  of  the  person  and  work  described  with  those 
of  the  accounts  of  St.  Paul,  St.  Peter  and  the  synop- 
tics, and  with  the  actual  person  and  work  of  Jesus 


Duality  of  Our  Lord's  Person.          23 

himself,  it  will  of  course  seem  daring  and  unjustifiable 
to  a  merely  natural  criticism,  but  it  is  true  neverthe- 
less. 

The  Jesus  of  St.  John  is  incontrovertibly  the  in- 
carnation of  a  divine  person  ;  but  it  is  never  so  at  the 
expense  of  his  being  just  as  truly  and  wholly  and 
consistently  a  human  person.  I  need  not  add,  save 
for  those  who  ignorantly  or  wilfully  misunderstand, 
that  this  does  not  mean  that  he  is  two  persons  but 
one  who  if  he  is  as  truly  divine  as  he  is  human  is 
also  as  truly  human  as  he  is  divine.  In  St.  John  how- 
ever it  is  only  the  second  that  needs  to  be  made 
apparent.  The  Jesus,  for  example,  of  the  fifth  chap- 
ter, who  feels  himself  one  with  the  Father  and  not 
only  works  the  Father's  work  but  as  it  were  works 
the  Father's  working  ("  My  Father  worketh  and  I 
work,"  as  though  it  were  not  only  to  one  result  but 
even  by  one  operation) ;  who  judges  the  divine  judg- 
ment and  saves  with  the  divine  salvation,  yet  claims 
do  to  all  this  humanly  and  accounts  for  doing  it  not 
on  the  ground  of  being  divine  but  on  the  ground  that, 
being  human,  he  is  wholly  surrendered  to  God  and 
does  not  oppose  himself  to  God's  being  and  willing 
and  working  in  him.  He  is  what  he  is  and  does 
what  he  does  because  he  wholly  seeks  not  himself 
or  his  own  will  but  only  and  wholly  the  will  of  him 
who  had  sent  him.  It  is  as  Son  of  man  that  he  is 
sole  and  supreme  Saviour  and  Judge,  a  savor  of  life 
unto  life  and  of  death  unto  death.  His  attitude  to 
his  own  miracles  is  the  same  as  that  in  the  synoptics. 
They  are  all  merely  figures  of  his  one  complete  and 
perfect  work  of  raising  humanity  out  of  death  and 


24  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

quickening  or  regenerating  it  with  the  life  of  God. 
He  is  the  way,  the  truth  and  the  life  for  men  because 
he,  as  representing  and  embodying  humanity,  has  by 
the  one  way  for  men — the  way  of  self-sacrificing  love 
and  obedience,  the  way  of  the  cross — attained  the 
whole  truth  and  lived  the  whole  life  of  humanity.  In 
consequence,  power  is  his  over  all  flesh  to  give  eternal 
life  to  those  who  believe  in  and  receive  and  love  him. 
The  above  very  general  outline  will  serve  to  illus- 
trate and  justify  the  conclusions  which  we  wish  to 
make  the  starting-point  of  our  further  studies.  When 
we  take  the  Christian  Scriptures  as  a  whole,  leaving 
aside  all  questions  of  criticism,  the  following  points 
become  clearer  and  clearer  to  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness in  proportion  as  it  more  and  more  enters 
into  and  is  more  and  more  qualified  to  judge  them. 
There  is  no  essential  part  of  the  New  Testament 
that  is  not  instinct  and  vital  with  the  primitive  im- 
pulse and  life  of  the  Christianity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
All  the  parts  are  not  the  same  but  they  are  coor- 
dinate and  supplementary  parts  of  an  organic  whole 
which  has  become  the  faith  and  the  life  of  the  cath- 
olic church.  The  conclusions  that  represent  the 
teaching  of  the  New  Testament  writers  as  inconsis- 
tent and  made  up  of  different  and  contradictory  im- 
pulses and  directions  of  thought  are  drawn  from  in- 
complete assumptions  of  what  the  initial  and  essential 
principle  and  fact  of  Christianity  is.  Assume  that 
the  actual  Christ  is  not  and  cannot  have  been  what 
the  church  has  received  him  to  be,  and  all  that  flows 
from  him  must  become  instantly  and  from  the  begin- 
ning confusion,  self-contradiction  and  incomprehensi- 


The  Organic  Age  of  Christianity.      25 

bility.  Assume  him  to  be  what  the  church  believes 
him,  and  the  Scriptures,  the  thought  and  life  of  the 
church,  the  faith  and  formative  principle  of  Christen- 
dom, become  one,  harmonious  and  comprehensible. 

The  first  movement,  manifestation  and  self-em- 
bodiment of  Christianity,  as  destined  to  be  not  merely 
an  idea  but  a  realization  and  an  institution  in  the 
world,  was  certainly  its  most  living,  plastic  and  cre- 
ative act.  When  this  stage  was  at  an  end  it  was 
found  to  have  formed  for  itself  an  outward  expres- 
sion of  worship  and  life,  an  organization  for  discipline 
and  government,  and  a  body  of  sacred  books  that 
embodied  its  teaching.  Confining  ourselves  to  the 
latter  we  might  say  that  the  action  of  the  church  in 
accepting  a  canon  of  Scripture  need  not  have  been 
more  than  the  instinctive  and  practical  wisdom  of 
receiving  as  highest,  truest  and  best  Christianity's 
own  first,  living  and  creative  expression  of  itself,  and 
making  this  the  norm  and  measure  of  all  subsequent 
self-expressions  of  it.  It  is  self-evident  to  the  mind 
that  takes  it  in  as  a  whole  that  the  New  Testament 
is  a  single  movement  of  spiritual  and  Christian  thought 
and  life  and  that  it  is  complete  and  sufficient  in  itself. 
It  is  equally  certain  that  neither  the  succeeding  nor 
any  subsequent  age  had  in  it  either  the  plastic  capa- 
city or  the  creative  power  to  take  for  itself  a  living 
form  such  as  Christianity  easily,  freely  and  naturally 
assumed  in  its  initiative  stage.  And  therefore  it  was, 
to  say  no  more,  an  act  of  practical  wisdom  to  accept 
that  first  embodiment  and  expression  of  itself  as  in 
principle  at  least  and  in  substance  final  and  irreform- 
able.  In  this  way  actually  the  church  did  adopt  its 


26  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

primitive  liturgical  norm,  its  episcopal  organization 
and  its  canon  of  Scripture.  And  since  then  experi- 
ence has  proved  that  neither  in  worship,  in  govern- 
ment nor  in  doctrine  has  the  church  ever  well  or 
wisely  tampered  with  its  primitive  constitution  or 
form.  On  the  contrary  experience  ever  brings  it 
back  to  these  as  certainly  humanly  best  if  not  indeed 
divinely  ordered  and  appointed. 

Returning  then  to  the  Scriptures  as  the  source 
and  rule  of  the  further  thinking  and  defining  of  the 
church's  mind  upon  the  essential  doctrine  of  the  per- 
son and  work  of  Christ,  what  may  we  in  recapitula- 
tion sum  up  as  the  essential  elements  of  the  prob- 
lem? We  may  say  first  that  if  Christianity  is  to 
remain  true  to  its  own  original  claim  upon  the  church 
and  to  the  church's  original  impression  and  accept- 
ance of  it,  it  must  continue  to  present  in  its  Head  and 
in  itself  not  only  the  ideal  but  the  reality  of  a  per- 
sonal presence  and  operation  of  God  in  humanity. 
Christianity  must  be  primarily  and  essentially  a  di- 
vine fact  and  a  divine  act.  It  can  never  be  anything 
less  than  an  atonement  of  God  with  man  and  a  re- 
demption and  completion  of  man  in  God.  And  in 
the  second  place  since  the  Christ  of  the  Scriptures 
represents  and  fills  man's  part  as  well  as  God's  in 
the  great  act  of  the  divine-human  atonement ;  since 
as  the  great  High  Priest  appointed  for  man  in  things 
pertaining  to  God  he  is  we  to  Godward  as  truly  as 
he  is  God  to  usward ;  therefore  he  must  be  really 
man  and  there  must  not  be  any  more  limitation  in 
his  manhood  than  there  is  in  his  Godhead. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE    NATURAL    BASIS    OF     A    SCRIPTURAL    AND 
CATHOLIC     CHRISTOLOGY. 

HE  claim  thus  far  made  we  may  restate 
as  follows :  the  writings  that  passed  into 
the  permanent  acceptance  of  the  church 
as  its  canon  of  Scripture  belong  to  a  sin- 
gle and  complete  movement  of  thought 
and  life  in  which  Christianity  expressed  its  first  and 
whole  impression  and  conception  of  the  person  and 
work  of  Jesus  Christ.  Only  then  and  there  was  such 
an  expression  and  record  of  the  original  and  origi- 
nating facts  of  Christianity  possible.  No  later  age 
could  either  make  it  or  materially  add  to  it.  What- 
ever Christ  had  been  or  had  done  in  himself,  Christian- 
ity did  not  originate  or  enter  into  the  world  until  his 
person  and  his  work  had  passed  into  the  mind,  the 
life  and  the  experience  of  the  first  believers.  When 
the  Scriptures  were  completed  they  had  so  passed 
and  were  become  the  possession  of  the  church.  There 
was  much  still  and  would  be  always  for  Christian 
thought  and  science  to  occupy  itself  with  in  the 
Christian  faith  and  life,  but  so  far  as  the  materials 
were  concerned  for  all  this  future  occupation,  they 

27 


28  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

were  complete  in  the  primitive  experience  as  recorded 
in  the  Scriptures;  or  if  they  were  not  there  was  no 
means  or  possibility  of  future  addition  to  them. 

What  the  church  had  to  do  afterward  as  we  shall 
see — and  it  was  an  inevitable  and  necessary  task — 
was  to  form  out  of  the  materials  in  its  possession  a 
common  or  catholic  faith  over  against  the  incom- 
plete, variable  and  conflicting  faiths  of  its  individual 
members.  But  it  was  more  than  two  centuries  be- 
fore the  church  was  in  condition  or  circumstance  to 
think  and  express  itself  again  as  a  whole.  In  the 
meantime  we  have  only  here  and  there  individual 
voices,  speaking  each  for  itself  and  yet  testifying 
by  their  agreement  to  the  wide-spread  and  unbroken 
certainty  of  the  common  truth  and  life.  They  of 
course  were  not  infallible ;  some  of  them  lived  and 
thought  only  in  the  light  of  the  general  tradition 
before  and  without  the  guidance  of  an  accepted  Scrip- 
ture, while  all  as  yet  were  without  that  of  an  author- 
itative catholic  consensus  or  agreement.  A  complete 
and  all-sided  faith  or  life  is  not  promised  or  given  to 
any  individual  man,  and  no  single  man  even  with 
the  aid  of  the  Scriptures  holds  such  except  as  the 
gift  to  him  in  whole  or  for  the  most  part  of  the 
common  thought  and  knowledge  of  the  church.  The 
very  elevation  and  intensity  of  individual  attention 
and  experience  in  one  direction  withdraws  it  from 
other  directions  of  quite  equal  truth  and  importance. 
Only  such  a  complex  resultant  of  the  operation  of 
many  minds  and  lives  as  we  have  in  the  Scriptures 
or  in  the  church  can  combine  the  whole  truth  or  ex- 
press the  sum  of  Christian  experience.  The  earliest 


Harmony  of  the  Early  Fathers.         29 

fathers  were  separated  in  some  respects  further  than 
are  we  who  have  Scripture  and  catholic  consent 
from  the  primitive  and  formative  impulse  and  life  of 
Christianity.  We  may  expect  to  find  in  no  one  of 
them  therefore  the  whole  developed  round  of  truth 
and  life  as  it  is  in  Christ.  Yet  on  the  other  hand 
it  may  be  claimed  that  in  no  one  of  them  do  we  not 
find  one  at  least  or  some  of  those  truths  in  Christ 
that  are  essential  parts  of  the  truth  as  it  is  whole 
in  him,  and  each  of  which  is  only  true  in  the  com- 
mon truth  of  all  the  others.  And  so  at  the  close  of 
the  second  century  Irenaeus  in  Gaul,  Tertullian  in 
Africa  and  Clement  in  Alexandria,  representing  the 
Christian  world  of  the  time,  are  substantially  and 
sufficiently  agreed  upon  the  essential  fact  and  doc- 
trine of  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ.  But 
that  from  the  first  and  always,  even  within  the  church, 
there  were  not  only  partial  and  incomplete  con- 
ceptions but  also  denials  and  contradictions  of  the 
essential  truth  of  Christ,  it  is  needless  to  say.  The 
founder  and  the  first  teachers  of  Christianity  fore- 
saw that  it  was  not  only  inevitable  but  needful  that 
it  should  be  so.  Truth  is  only  made  known  and 
indeed  only  knows  itself  in  conflict  with  error;  and 
it  is  the  most  familiar  fact  in  connection  with  the 
actual  growth  and  formation  of  catholic  doctrine  that 
it  was  reached  by  the  application  on  its  largest  his- 
torical scale  of  the  principle  of  exclusion. 

Before  beginning  however  to  trace  the  process  by 
which  the  church  formed  for  itself  a  catholic  mind 
from  the  materials  of  truth  committed  to  it — that  is  to 
say,  by  which  the  truth  of  Scripture,  consisting  mainly 


30  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

of  facts,  was  converted  into  that  of  the  church,  com- 
posed largely  also  of  doctrine  and  dogma — we  must 
first  discuss  a  very  large  and  important  principle 
that  underlies  the  whole  matter. 

It  is  very  evident  that  there  is  a  double  problem  in- 
volved in  the  origin  and  appearance  of  Christianity 
in  the  world — the  problem  namely  not  only  of  its  di- 
vine giving  but  also  of  its  human  receiving.  A  divine 
revelation  or  communication  of  any  sort  can  only 
be  adequately  made  through  an  adequate  human 
understanding  and  acceptance  of  it.  Granting  a  true 
and  complete  revelation  of  God  in  word  and  work 
through  Jesus  Christ,  what  is  the  ground  of  assur- 
ance of  a  true  and  complete  appropriation  and  repre- 
sentation of  that  word  and  work  in  the  Scriptures 
and  in  the  mind  and  life  of  the  church?  Both  sides 
of  the  problem  are  everywhere  recognized  and  pre- 
sented with  sufficient  plainness  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, where  grace  or  divine  communication  is  al- 
ways conditioned  upon  faith  or  human  apprehension 
and  reception.  The  light  could  but  shine  in  darkness 
if  the  darkness  comprehended  it  not.  When  St.  Peter 
made  his  famous  confession  of  the  person  of  the  Lord 
and  was  told,  "  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-Jonah, 
for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  this  unto  thee 
but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven,"  there  is  recog- 
nition of  the  fact  that  an  objective  divine  revelation 
of  truth  or  life  is  dependent  upon  and  of  no  avail 
without  a  corresponding  subjective  human  power  of 
apprehension  and  acceptance.  Similarly  when  St. 
Paul  says,  "  But  when  it  pleased  God  ...  to  reveal 
his  Son  in  me,"  he  refers  not  to  the  objective  self- 


Incarnation  and  Generation.  31 

revelation  of  God  in  Christ  but  to  the  divinely  given 
power  in  himself  to  recognize  the  truth  revealed, 
without  which  it  would  or  could  have  had  no  signifi- 
cance or  truth  whatsoever  for  him.  On  a  larger 
scale,  the  birthday  of  the  church  is  truly  placed  in 
the  New  Testament  not  on  Easter  day  when  all  the 
conditions  of  its  new  life  are  objectively  completed 
in  the  resurrection  of  its  Head  but  on  Whitsunday, 
when  by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  the  subjective 
conditions  are  realized  by  which  alone  the  risen  life 
could  become  its  own. 

The  general  principle  is  stated  in  the  scriptural  and 
church  doctrine  that  the  incarnation  as  a  whole  and 
in  all  its  parts  is  an  act  of  the  divine  Word  by  the 
divine  Spirit,  the  Logos  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  this 
conjoint  work,  as  has  been  elsewhere  said,  the  Word 
as  always  is  the  principle  or  agent  of  the  objective 
revelation,  the  Spirit  that  of  the  subjective  human 
appropriation.  In  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  not  the  divine  begetter  nor  the  divine  be- 
gotten but  reveals  his  operation  in  the  grace  of  the 
human  conception  and  child-bearing.  The  expres- 
sion "conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost"  represents  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  mother  not  of  the  act  by  which  the 
Word  became  flesh  but  of  the  preparation  and  abil- 
ity of  the  flesh  to  be  assumed  by  the  Word.  The 
function  of  the  Word  appears  in  the  divine  imparta- 
tion,  that  of  the  Spirit  in  the  human  susceptibility 
and  reception.  By  the  Word  God  begets,  by  the 
Spirit  humanity  conceives  and  bears ;  through  both 
God  is  incarnated  and  humanity  is  regenerated  and 
redeemed. 


32  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

This  may  all  be  considered  the  more  or  less  figur- 
ative or  symbolical  language  of  the  Scriptures  and 
the  church ;  but  attach  what  meaning  or  importance 
we  may  to  the  facts  or  to  their  expressions,  there  is 
a  truth  that  lies  behind  them  to  which  in  some  form 
or  other  we  must  do  justice.  If  Christianity  is  some- 
thing more  than  a  mere  humanly  devised  theory  of 
conduct  or  humanly  conceived  dream  of  religion,  if 
God  is  indeed  in  it  and  between  him  and  us  there  is 
something  really  given  and  received,  then  we  must 
form  to  ourselves  some  mode  of  conceiving  both  the 
giving  and  the  receiving.  The  former  we  call  a  rev- 
elation, the  self-manifestation  and  self-communica- 
tion of  God  to  men,  objectively  and  completely  given 
in  the  divine-human  person  and  life  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  latter  appears  in  Christian  thought  under  several 
different  forms,  all  of  which  however  are  but  kinds 
or  degrees  of  one  and  the  same  thing. 

The  highest  of  these  forms  is  what  has  been  desig- 
nated inspiration,  a  term  applied  exclusively  to  that 
assumed  true  apprehension  and  infallible  record  of 
Christian  revelation  which  we  have  in  the  Scriptures. 
The  next  higher  form  of  human  reception  of  divine 
truth  in  Jesus  Christ  is  to  be  found  in  church  au- 
thority, which  claims  for  itself  the  right  to  inter- 
pret the  Scriptures  and  to  give,  as  in  the  creeds,  a 
catholic  doctrine  which  is  above  any  private  inter- 
pretation of  individual  Christians.  Lower  in  a  sense 
than  either  of  these  and  yet  the  basis  and  condition 
of  them  both  is  the  claim  of  the  individual  human 
soul  to  be  able  to  say  at  all  that  it  knows  or  can 


Human  Knowledge  of  God.  33 

know  God  or  the  things  that  are  freely  given  to  it  of 
God  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Of  course  if  it  is  impossible  for  the  human  spirit 
to  know  God  otherwise  than  as  it  conjectures  his 
existence  and  its  own  relation  to  him  within  the 
course  of  nature;  if  there  is  demonstrably  no  inter- 
relation and  communion  between  finite  spirits  and 
the  Father  of  spirits  of  a  spiritual  and  personal  char- 
acter, which  is  to  us  the  essence  of  any  real  religion 
— that  ends  the  matter.  If  however  there  is  for  the 
spiritual  man  a  knowledge  of  spiritual  things,  such 
knowledge,  while  on  one  side  it  must  doubtless  be 
of  God,  on  the  other  side  must  equally  be  of  the 
man  himself.  All  knowledge  must  be  equally  of 
the  object  and  of  the  subject  and  of  a  relation  or 
correspondence  between  the  two  by  virtue  of  which 
the  one  somehow  makes  itself  known  and  the  other 
somehow  knows  it.  If  God  can  make  himself  known 
to  us  or  in  us  it  is  only  because  there  is  such  a  cor- 
respondence between  him  and  us  by  virtue  of  which 
we  can  know  him.  However  God  in  any  way  or 
degree  makes  himself  known  to  us,  we  may  depend 
upon  it  that  it  is  through  our  own  way  of  knowing 
him ;  and  if  it  is  in  any  sense  supernatural  it  is  only 
in  that  in  which  the  supernatural  is  the  highest  reach 
and  action  of  the  natural.  God's  presence  and  op- 
eration in  anything  does  not  replace  or  displace  the 
thing  but  completes  and  fulfils  it;  and  so  through 
any  presence  and  operation  of  God  in  him  man  does 
not  cease  to  be  but  for  the  first  time  truly  and  com- 
pletely becomes  himself.  If  therefore  we  know  God 


34  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

and  what  he  has  given  us  of  himself  in  Jesus  Christ 
it  is  by  virtue  of  some  most  natural  faculty  and  cri- 
terion within  ourselves  as  spiritual  beings,  or  beings 
constituted  for  such  knowledge  of  God  and  of  the 
things  of  God.  The  spiritual  man  is  judge  of  spirit- 
ual things  because  as  they  are  for  him  so  in  some 
real  sense  he  is  for  them,  and  therefore  as  they 
"  find "  him  so  he  receives,  measures  and  verifies 
them.  Aristotle  defines  that  to  be  "  rational "  which 
is  so  to  the  rational  or  wise  man,  making  "  the  right 
reason  "  the  test  or  measure  of  what  is  rational  as 
conversely  he  makes  the  objectively  and  truly  ra- 
tional the  test  of  the  right  reason.  And  so  St.  Paul 
says — and  says  in  perfect  consonance  with  our  Lord's 
own  position — that  that  is  spiritual  truth  which  is  so 
to  the  spiritual  man,  as  conversely  the  spiritual  man 
is  he  who  understands  spiritual  truth.  These  two 
are  for  each  other  and  each  is  test  and  measure  of 
the  other;  only  he  who  is  of  God  can  know  what  is 
of  God  and  he  only  is  of  God  who  knows  the  things 
freely  given  him  of  God.  It  has  been  asserted  and 
truly  that  all  ultimate  truth,  whether  of  the  natural 
or  of  the  spiritual  reason,  is  believed  at  last  because 
it  is  truth  and  not  because  it  is  proved.  Truth  and  the 
reason  are  mutually  measures  and  tests  of  each  other 
and  only  that  truly  stands  which  truly  unites  them. 
We  might  illustrate  this  position  in  many  ways. 
For  example,  science  recognizes  the  fact  that  in  hu- 
man thought  and  life  there  are  certain  ideas  or  senti- 
ments which  "  persist,"  and  it  admits  this  persistence 
as  an  argument  for  their  truth.  Among  these  are 
the  ideas  or  sentiments  of  God,  of  immortality,  of 


Truth  and  Reason.  35 

religious  faith  and  worship.  Will  these  continue  to 
persist  as  long  as  human  thought  and  life  continue  ? 
It  is  perfectly  rational  to  reply  that  that  depends 
upon  whether  or  not  they  are  true  in  themselves.  If 
they  are  not  true  they  will  certainly  sooner  or  later 
disappear  out  of  that  of  which  they  are  not  integral 
and  essential  parts.  If  they  are  true  it  is  equally 
certain  that  they  will  never  disappear  but  will  con- 
tinue to  give  no  rest  to  the  individual  or  to  the  race 
until  they  have  received  fuller — and  fullest — recog- 
nition and  satisfaction.  If  there  is  spiritual  truth  for 
the  spiritual  reason  and  a  spiritual  reason  in  us  for 
the  truth  we  need  have  no  doubt  that  these  will  fi- 
nally come  together ;  what  God  has  made  to  be  joined 
together  no  man  or  men  can  forever  keep  asunder. 

Now  Christianity  claims  to  be  the  fulness  of  divine 
revelations  and  communications  to  man  and  the 
completeness  and  limit  of  man's  capacity  of  recep- 
tion from  God.  It  proclaims  Christ  as  on  the  one 
side  the  sum  of  spiritual  or  divine  things  to  be  ap- 
prehended, and  as  on  the  other  the  perfect  human 
apprehension  of  these  things.  He  perfectly  repre- 
sents God  in  things  pertaining  to  man  as  he  perfectly 
represents  man  in  things  pertaining  to  God  and  so 
is  the  perfect  expression  of  the  perfect  relation  be- 
tween them.  If  this  be  so  it  follows  that  as  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Logos  of  God  so  is  he  the  proper  con- 
tent and  revelation  of  the  spiritual  reason  of  man; 
and  he  is  received  and  believed  by  the  soul  prima- 
rily perhaps  for  other  reasons  also  but  finally  and  per- 
manently because  and  only  because  he  is  the  truth 
and  life  of  the  soul. 


36  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

Thus  the  proper  proof  of  Jesus  Christ  is  Jesus 
Christ  himself.  It  is  for  what  he  is  and  not  for  any 
external  proofs  he  may  have  given  of  himself  or  God 
may  have  given  of  him  that  he  is  believed  on  and 
will  be  believed  on  in  the  world.  The  same  amount 
of  proof  and  ten  times  the  same  amount  though  it 
were  given  by  God  himself  to  anything  less  true  or 
less  vitally  true  in  itself  could  not  have  produced 
the  same  faith  in  us,  because  our  faith  goes  out  not 
to  the  proof  but  to  the  truth  of  the  thing  proved. 
Though  Jesus  Christ  had  fulfilled  all  prophecy  and 
wrought  all  miracles  and  given  himself  up  to  worse 
than  the  cross  and  risen  with  a  more  startling  and 
convincing  resurrection  from  the  dead,  all  these  things 
would  not  in  themselves  have  made  Christianity  a 
thing  for  all  men  in  all  time  if  there  were  not  some- 
thing in  itself  for  all  men  and  all  time,  if  he  were  not 
indeed  the  way,  the  truth  and  the  life. 

To  illustrate  this  more  in  detail :  it  is  not  enough 
that  Christianity  with  its  absolute  and  exclusive 
claim  should  be  true ;  it  must  be  at  every  point  the 
inevitable,  only  and  ultimate  truth.  This  of  course 
will  not  be  apparent  at  first  in  the  case  of  each 
such  truth;  it  only  becomes  so  at  last  as  the  re- 
sult of  a  process  by  which  the  experience  gradually 
fits  and  adjusts  itself  to  the  truth  and  the  truth 
gradually  approves  and  proves  itself  to  the  experi- 
ence ;  and  so  the  two  become  one  in  a  union  from 
which  there  is  afterward  no  possible  divorce.  Such 
a  union,  good  for  time  and  eternity,  between  the 
spirit  and  those  spiritual  things  which  are  its  proper 
object,  can  only  prove  itself  by  its  actual  existence 


Incarnation  and  Atonement  Necessary.  37 

and  by  experience  of  itself;  it  cannot  be  proved 
from  without.  For  example,  to  the  tried  and  devel- 
oped Christian  consciousness  it  becomes  more  and 
more  an  impossibility  that  the  final  act  and  ultimate 
fact  of  relationship  between  God  and  man  should  be 
or  should  be  thought  anything  less  or  other  than  an 
incarnation.  Religion  ends  inevitably  in  incarnation  ; 
and  the  more  the  truth  is  explored  and  understood 
and  realized  not  by  the  speculative  but  by  the  prac- 
tical and  spiritual  reason  and  experience,  the  more 
the  inevitableness  of  its  being  so  or  the  impossibility 
of  its  being  otherwise  becomes  a  conviction  and  is 
raised  into  a  certainty. 

It  is  the  same  with  the  truth  expressed  by  the 
word  "  atonement."  It  is  true  that  theories  of  atone- 
ment have  so  revolted  the  reason  and  conscience  of 
man  as  to  have  created  a  not  unnatural  prejudice 
against  the  doctrine ;  but  a  doctrine  of  atonement 
is  an  inevitable  element  of  any  real  religion.  The 
human  soul  is  not  at  one  and  needs  to  be  made  so 
with  itself,  the  moral  law,  and  God;  and  no  religion 
serves  its  end  that  does  not  bring  this  reconciliation 
and  peace.  Its  necessary  function  is  to  take  away 
sin,  to  remove  the  separation  by  removing  that  which 
separates  between  God  and  man,  and  so  consum- 
mate their  union  and  oneness. 

As  much  may  be  said  of  the  truth  or  fact  of  re- 
demption. A  gospel  for  us  must  be  a  gospel  of 
spiritual  and  moral  freedom,  of  liberty  to  be  or  to 
become  our  true  and  complete  selves;  it  must  re- 
move the  bond  of  blindness  from  the  eye,  of  deaf- 
ness from  the  ear,  of  ignorance  from  the  mind,  of 


38  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

weakness  from  the  will,  of  sin  from  the  soul  and  of 
death  from  the  life. 

If  we  turn  to  see  how  these  and  all  other  truths 
necessary  to  a  real  religion  or  gospel  were  realized 
for  us  in  Jesus  Christ  we  shall  find  the  same  thing. 
The  spiritual  and  moral  personal  human  life  and 
character  of  Jesus  Christ  is  human  salvation — the 
whole  and  the  only  salvation  of  which  humanity  is 
in  need  or  is  capable.  It  is  a  complete  incarnation, 
atonement,  redemption,  anything  else,  everything 
else  which  human  reason  can  conceive  or  human 
experience  realize  of  necessary  deliverance  from  evil 
or  possible  consummation  in  good.  Man  can  only 
be  saved  or  perfected  through  conformity  to  a  final 
standard  which  it  is  his  end  or  destiny  to  attain ; 
and  the  scriptural  statement  on  the  subject  is  the  last 
word  upon  it :  "  Whom  he  foreknew,  them  he  predes- 
tined to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son."  If 
we  study  either  the  religious  or  the  ethical  type  of 
manhood  which  our  Lord  has  made  current  in  the 
world  we  shall  feel  the  impossibility  of  their  ever 
being  revised  or  changed.  If  a  scientific  morality 
should  succeed  in  replacing  that  which  has  hitherto 
rested  upon  the  faith,  love  and  obedience  of  Christ 
it  will  have  to  accept  his  principles  though  it  reject 
his  person.  But  the  cross  of  Christ  will  never  cease 
to  be  the  symbol  as  it  is  the  only  possible  principle 
of  the  highest  human  life  and  character.  There  is 
but  one  way  either  to  Godhead  or  to  the  truest  man- 
hood— the  VIA  CRUCIS ;  and  none  can  come  either  to 
the  Father  or  to  real  selfhood  and  personality  but 
by  it. 


Meaning  of  Inspiration.  39 

All  these  are  merely  illustrations,  the  most  palpa- 
ble and  nearest  at  hand,  to  prove  that  it  is  only  that 
which  is  true  of — the  truth  of — the  soul  that  is  true 
to  the  soul,  and  that  the  soul  that  knows  itself 
knows  the  things  that  belong  to  it.  So  it  knows 
God  and  so  it  knows  that  union  and  oneness  of  God 
with  itself  which  it  finds  in  Jesus  Christ.  And  so  in 
Christ  and  his  cross  it  knows  its  atonement  with  God, 
its  redemption  from  sin,  its  resurrection  from  death. 

Now  it  is  the  highest  reach  and  form  of  this  spirit- 
ual certitude  of  spiritual  things,  as  they  are  found  in 
their  fulness  in  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ, 
which  was  attained  and  expressed  in  the  Scriptures 
and  which  we  call  inspiration.  As  our  Lord  himself 
was  in  fact  only  found  and  accepted  of  men  to  be 
divine  because  he  was  divine,  so,  if  not  all,  it  is  per- 
haps enough  to  say  of  the  Scriptures  that  they  were 
found  and  received  of  the  church  to  be  inspired  be- 
cause they  were  inspired.  At  any  rate  the  church 
recognized  in  them  that  highest  elevation  of  the  hu- 
man spirit  to  receive  and  understand  the  things  of  the 
divine  Spirit  which  it  accepted  as  its  own  measure 
and  standard  of  knowledge  and  to  which  it  gave 
the  name,  by  excellence,  of  inspiration.  This  highest 
knowledge  of  spiritual  things  as  they  are  revealed  in 
Christ  it  may  be  true  that  we  are  but  it  is  not  neces- 
sary that  we  should  be  able  to  distinguish  in  kind 
from  that  which  the  church  continues  to  possess  and 
which  every  human  soul  may  have  of  God  and  of  his 
revelation  to  it  of  himself.  All  that  is  necessary  is 
that  those  who  were  nearest  to  him  in  time  and  space 
should  have  so  known  our  Lord  as  it  was  essential 


4O  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

that  he  should  be  known  if  he  was  to  be  any  revela- 
tion at  all  of  God  and  of  human  salvation,  and  that 
they  should  have  so  recorded  and  transmitted  their 
knowledge  of  him  that  it  should  continue  to  be  the 
possession  of  the  church  after  them. 

When  we  thus  endeavor  to  find  in  ourselves,  in 
our  own  reason  and  experience  the  basis  for  spiritual 
knowledge  and  certitude,  we  are  not  ignoring  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whose  function  it  is  to 
bring  us  into  all  truth  and  especially  to  reveal  Christ 
in  us  as  the  fulness  of  truth.  It  is  indeed  only  God 
who  can  reveal  himself  in  us  but  even  God  can  re- 
veal himself  in  us  only  through  the  spiritual  reason 
and  experience  by  which  alone  we  can  know  him. 
We  may  not  with  Pelagius  confound  grace  with 
nature,  the  spiritual  real  knowledge  and  experience  of 
God  with  mere  natural  speculation  and  conjecture 
about  him,  but  we  must  find  and  exhibit  the  pres- 
ence and  operation  of  the  divine  Spirit  in  us  in  the 
life  and  activities  of  our  own  spirit,  which  is  his  only 
organ  in  us. 

As  the  right  and  power  of  the  individual  soul  to 
know  God  and  to  know  the  things  that  are  freely 
given  to  it  of  God  is  thus  the  basis  and  the  only 
necessary  basis  of  the  authority  of  Scripture,  so 
equally  is  it  that  of  the  authority  of  the  church  in 
after-time  to  interpret  the  Scriptures.  And  not  only 
to  recognize  the  right  of  personal  truth  but  also  to  rec- 
ognize it  as  the  principle  and  basis  of  all  other  truth 
is  not  to  deny  the  fact  and  necessity  of  a  catholic  any 
more  than  that  of  a  scriptural  truth.  It  is  the  func- 
tion of  the  individual  and  personal  reason  to  appre- 


Particular  and  Universal  Truth.       41 

hend  rational  truth  and  there  is  no  such  entity  as  a 
universal  or  common  reason  over  and  above  and 
superior  to  that  of  particular  men.  Just  as  little  is 
there  a  thought  or  mind  of  Christendom  or  of  the 
Christian  church  as  a  whole  superior  to  and  possess- 
ing authority  over  the  minds  and  thoughts  of  indi- 
vidual Christians.  All  knowledge  of  any  sort,  human 
or  divine,  comes  primarily  through  the  reason  and 
experience  of  individual  men.  But  while  there  is  no 
common  or  general  faculty  or  organ  of  either  reason 
or  faith  there  are  conclusions  or  decisions  of  indi- 
vidual and  personal  reason  and  faith  which  in  time 
become  common,  general,  or  even  universal.  There 
is  an  objective  truth  and  reality  that  corresponds  to 
and  complements  and  completes  human  intelligence 
and  desire;  and  while  this  objective  reality  does  not 
"find"  or  is  not  found  by  every  individual  human 
soul,  yet  in  the  long  run  the  common  sense  and  com- 
mon consent  of  souls  does  so  accept  it  as  to  establish 
its  right  to  be  called  universal.  There  are  a  great 
many  natural  truths  that  have  long  since  passed 
through  individual  reasons  into  the  universal  reason 
of  mankind — by  which  we  mean  not  a  separate  com- 
mon judgment  but  a  common  consent  among  all  the 
particular  judgments  of  men.  And  although  indi- 
viduals and  even  many  individuals  may  theoretically 
deny  such  truths  yet  the  rational  world  does  not 
question  their  claim  or  right  to  universality.  In  the 
same  way  there  are  truths  of  the  Spirit  that  can  be 
apprehended  only  by  individual  spirits  but  which, 
just  because  they  are  truths  of  the  Spirit,  necessary 
to  spiritual  thought  and  life  and  therefore  true  for  all 


42  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

spirits,  are  so  accepted  of  all  as  to  constitute  a  body 
of  truth  which  we  call  catholic. 

It  is  absurd  to  deny  the  existence  and  necessity 
of  such  a  body  of  catholic  truth,  either  in  the  natural 
or  in  the  spiritual  sphere.  If  it  were  not  possible  by 
such  a  principle  and  process  as  we  have  described 
of  general  consent  or  agreement  to  be  continually 
accumulating  an  ever-increasing  store  of  common  or 
certain  truths,  there  would  be  no  such  thing  at  all 
as  natural  or  spiritual  knowledge  and  progress.  It 
was  a  foregone  necessity  therefore  that  the  Christian 
church,  claiming  to  hold  in  itself  the  fulness  of  spir- 
itual truth  and  life,  should  as  soon  as  it  was  able  to 
do  so  proceed  to  set  up  over  against  the  particular 
vagaries  of  its  individual  members  a  standard  of 
catholic  faith  and  practice.  We  remember  that  the 
promise  and  assurance  was  given  not  to  individual 
believers  but  to  the  body  of  believers — the  church 
— of  a  permanent  possession  of  the  truth.  And  this 
promise  was  to  be  made  good  by  the  presence  with 
the  church  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  whom,  as 
God  was  in  Christ,  so  Christ  was  to  be  spiritually 
present  with  the  church  to  the  end  of  time.  But  it 
is  not  enough  to  give  this  merely  external  account  of 
how  the  church  was  to  be  kept  in  the  truth.  We 
may  depend  upon  it  that  the  only  true  supernatural  is 
the  truest  natural  and  that  the  most  divine  is  iden- 
tical with  the  most  human  safeguard  of  God's  truth 
among  men.  And  so  we  shall  find  that  as  all  the 
knowledge,  wisdom  and  progress  of  men  in  all  de- 
partments of  human  life  and  thought  have  passed 
through  the  experience  of  individuals  into  the  accept- 


The  Increment  of  Truth.  43 

ance  and  possession  of  communities,  races  and  the 
common  humanity,  so  God  makes  spiritual  truth  for 
mankind  pass  through  the  spiritual  experience  of 
mankind  and  by  proving  itself  true  for  all  to  become 
the  truth  of  all.  The  church  is  truly  the  itoivwia  Tt5i> 
dy/wv,  the  community,  the  common  experience,  truth, 
faith,  life  of  the  individual  saints — any  one  of  whom 
can  know  himself  wholly  as  indeed  he  thinks  or  ex- 
ists at  all  only  in  it.  Just  as  the  thought  or  wisdom 
of  the  most  original  thinker  of  any  age  is  in  the  main 
the  thought  and  wisdom  of  the  age  with  the  very 
slight  addition  of  his  own  original  contribution  to  it, 
so  the  greatest  genius  who  has  risen  to  recognition 
as  a  Christian  theologian  has  been  independent  of  the 
common  thought  or  of  the  common  results  of  thought 
in  the  church  only  to  the  extent  of  some  infinitesimal 
addition  of  his  own  to  the  common  store  of  its  know- 
ledge and  doctrine.  In  this  as  in  every  other  depart- 
ment of  human  experience  and  knowledge  no  indi- 
vidual who  really  adds  to  or  advances  it  begins  at  the 
beginning  but  only  at  the  end  of  an  already  long  and 
large  accumulation  of  tested,  verified  and  accepted 
truth  which  it  is  ignorance  and  folly  to  ignore  and 
to  which  no  one  who  ignores  it  can  possibly  have 
anything  to  add.  Indeed  all  truth  which  appeals  to 
the  common  experience  for  its  verification  must  ap- 
peal to  an  experience  which  is  not  only  wider  but 
much  larger  than  that  of  individuals ;  for  it  is  not  only 
time  alone  but  generally  only  a  long  time  that  re- 
veals the  natural  consequences  and  the  real  nature  of 
things.  There  is  a  sense  perhaps  in  which  no  truth 
ought  to  be  considered  final  and  irreformable.  If  it 


44  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

has  been  only  by  repeated  thinking  over  and  retesting 
in  the  past  that  it  has  become  generally  received, 
why  at  any  particular  point  in  the  present  or  the  fu- 
ture should  this  process  cease?  But  spiritual  know- 
ledge would  be  an  exception  to  all  other  results  of 
human  reason  and  experience  if  nothing  in  it  becomes 
practically  if  not  theoretically  final  and  concluded, 
and  he  must  be  transcendently  great  who  with  pro- 
priety sets  up  in  such  matters  himself  and  his  brief 
and  narrow  experience  against  the  spiritual  consent 
of  the  ages.  The  present  is  indeed  older  and  ought 
to  be  wiser  than  the  past  but  it  is  only  so  as  it  has 
added  its  own  to  the  wisdom  of  the  past,  and  the 
individual  who  in  this  day  thinks  himself  indepen- 
dent of  the  church  is  either  only  ignorant  whence  he 
derives  his  faith  or  else  possesses  in  his  faith  an  in- 
finitely doubtful  and  uncertain  factor.  Christianity  as 
we  have  seen  is  not  only  truth  from  God  but  is  also 
the  truth  of  us,  and  while  the  truth  from  God  was 
complete  from  the  first  in  Jesus  Christ  and  was  from 
the  first  sufficiently  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  yet 
not  God  himself  nor  Jesus  Christ  nor  the  Scriptures 
could  sufficiently  attest  to  us  the  truth  of  Christianity 
as  our  truth  and  our  life  if  it  were  not  equally  attested 
as  such  by  the  spiritual  common  sense  and  experience 
of  men  always  and  everywhere. 

It  may  be  asked,  What  does  the  church  mean  by 
the  "  all,  always,  and  everywhere  "  which  it  sets  up 
against  the  uncertainties  and  contradictions  of  private 
judgment?  But  in  all  departments  of  knowledge  the 
"  all  "  whose  consent  constitutes  universality  and 
carries  authority  is  not  literal  or  numerical  but  rep- 


The  Church  and  the  Council.          45 

resentative ;  the  suffrage  is  necessarily  limited  to 
those  who  are  qualified  to  bear  testimony  to  the 
common  sense  and  reason  in  the  matter.  The  "  com- 
mon law  "  is  not  common  in  any  more  literal  sense 
than  this  and  the  simplest  judgments  and  sentiments 
of  every-day  conduct  and  life  are  not  literally  and 
numerically  universal.  If  there  is  any  truth  in  the 
church  at  all  or  any  certainty  with  regard  to  its  truth, 
there  must  be  in  it,  at  least  as  much  as  in  the  fields 
of  human  experience  and  knowledge,  a  body  of  cath- 
olic or  universal  truth  as  distinguished  from  the  in- 
finite varieties  of  private  opinion. 

We  have  thus  recognized  the  function  of  the  church 
as  a  whole  as  necessary  to  a  complete  comprehension 
and  representation  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  Christ. 
It  was  inevitable  that  the  church  should  very  soon  be 
forced  to  discharge  this  function  in  the  formation  of 
a  body  of  catholic  truth.  This  was  not  its  sole  task ; 
it  had  to  form  for  itself,  for  example,  a  catholic  order 
or  organization  and  a  catholic  worship  as  well  as  a 
catholic  faith ;  but  with  this  latter  only  we  are  at  pres- 
ent concerned.  How  it  should  arrive  at  an  adequate 
expression  of  its  common  mind  was  quite  a  secondary 
matter;  the  essential  point  was  that  that  which  was 
expressed  should  be  truly  and  really  the  common 
mind.  In  expressing  itself  as  it  did  through  repre- 
sentative, general  or  ecumenical  councils  as  soon  as 
it  was  in  condition  to  do  so,  it  doubtless  availed  itself 
of  the  best  possible,  perhaps  the  only  practicable  in- 
strumentality at  its  command.  But  the  council  merely 
as  such  was  an  accident  and  not  at  all  the  essence  of 
such  authority  as  might  afterward  attach  to  its  utter- 


46  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

ances.  It  was  the  voice  of  the  church,  not  of  the  coun- 
cil, that  was  of  force,  and  this  might  or  might  not  be 
reached  through  the  council.  Sometimes  it  was  not 
when  it  might  well  have  been  expected,  and  some- 
times it  was  when — from  being  smaller  and  less  gen- 
eral or  for  other  reasons — it  would  hardly  have  been 
expected. 

The  point  or  principle  of  the  whole  matter  is  that 
just  as  the  reason  of  humanity  points  on  the  whole 
to  the  truth  and  the  conscience  of  humanity  acqui- 
esces in  the  right,  so  the  common  or  universal  spirit- 
ual consciousness  and  experience  of  the  whole  Chris- 
tian church  is  the  only  test  of  what  Christianity  is. 
The  question  is  how  to  get  its  verdict ;  and  even  when 
under  the  most  favorable  conditions  and  with  the  best 
guarantee  of  truth  the  council  has  assumed  to  render 
this,  it  can  only  be  ascertained  that  the  verdict  is  true, 
and  will  stand  by  a  long  and  silent  process  through 
which  the  decision  is  referred  back  to  the  church 
again  to  say  whether  it  has  correctly  expressed  itself 
through  its  council.  If  the  church  thus  accepts  the 
council  as  its  voice,  by  that  fact  it  imparts  to  it  an 
authority  which  is  its  own  and  not  that  of  the  council. 

The  truth  of  Christianity  is  the  truth  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  truth  of  Christ  is  a  matter  of  ourselves  as  well 
as  of  God.  If  it  is  indeed  the  truth  and  the  whole 
truth  of  ourselves,  then  we  know  that  it  is  God's  truth 
of  us.  It  is  impossible  that  we  should  know  otherwise 
whether  or  not  it  is  of  God.  The  authority  of  the 
church,  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  the  authority 
of  our  Lord,  the  authority  of  God,  are  all  a  very  great 
deal  along  with  the  authority  of  a  really  universal 


Authority  and  Experience.  47 

human  experience  (which  means  not  all  experience, 
but  all  that  truly  experiences).  Without  the  latter  it 
would  be  impossible  that  all  the  former  should  possess 
for  us  any  weight  or  value.  We  could  neither  prove 
that  we  really  have  them  nor  enforce  upon  ourselves 
or  others  their  claim  or  demand. 


CHAPTER  III. 

EBIONISM     AND    DOCETISM. 

N  and  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  upon 
which  the  Christian  church  took  its  birth, 
the  apostles  in  Jerusalem  preached  a  gos- 
pel, administered  a  baptism  and  celebrated 
a  rite  of  holy  communion  in  each  of  which 
was  involved  the  whole  truth  of  the  person  and  work 
of  Jesus  Christ.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  believe 
that  these  apostles  themselves  had  in  their  minds  a 
developed  and  defined  doctrine  of  the  person  and 
work  of  our  Lord.  The  incarnate  truth  is  ever  more 
divinely  present  than  it  is  humanly  apprehended  or 
comprehended.  Present  in  its  completeness  in  the 
beginning,  it  will  never  be  understood  and  received 
in  its  completeness  until  that  end  when  we  shall  come 
to  know  as  all  along  we  have  been  known.  And 
whatever  we  may  say  of  the  apostles,  very  certainly 
the  infant  church  of  Jerusalem  held  no  perfect  and 
explicit  doctrine  of  the  truth  completely  present  in 
its  midst.  It  would  have  been  pure  miracle  or  magic 
if  it  had  at  once  consciously  held  the  whole  truth  or 
been  wholly  free  from  error.  As  a  matter  of  fact  we 
find  that  while  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  had  no  his- 
tory after  it  was  finished  in  his  ascension,  the  know- 

48 


Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians.         49 

ledge  of  it  had  a  history  as  human  and  as  natural  as 
human  nature  itself,  and  that  to  know  human  nature 
is  all  that  is  necessary  to  anticipate  and  explain  that 
history. 

We  must  remember  then  that  while  the  infant 
church  was  Christian  it  was  also  still  Jewish  and  we 
must  endeavor  to  realize  what  this  meant  for  its  im- 
mediate further  progress  and  development.  There 
were  certainly  many  in  it  who  remained  much  more 
Jews  than  they  had  become  Christians  and  there  was 
probably  not  one  who  had  become  so  Christian  as 
to  be  no  longer  a  Jew.  When  St.  Paul  through  his 
experience  with  Jews  and  Gentiles  was  brought  at 
first  practically  and  then  theoretically  and  as  a  matter 
of  essential  and  vital  principle  to  see  that  the  church 
could  only  become  wholly  and  truly  Christian  by 
wholly  ceasing  to  be  Jewish,  there  was  not  one  of  the 
original  apostles  who  was  prepared  to  go  the  whole 
length  with  him.  A  series  of  compromises  and  ac- 
commodations was  necessary  to  keep  even  him  and 
them  united  in  the  common  cause,  and  this  was  not 
always  and  entirely  successful.  The  distance  between 
the  many  in  Jerusalem  who  regarded  Christianity  as 
only  a  higher  advance  or  stage  of  Judaism  and  one 
who  like  St.  Paul  on  the  other  extreme  had  come  to 
see  in  it  a  divine  reversal  of  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  Judaism  was  a  very  wide  one.  But  St.  Paul 
while  he  saw  in  Christianity  and  Judaism  the  gospel 
and  the  law,  a  reversal  of  principle  and  therefore  an 
irreconcilable  antagonism,  could  nevertheless  see  that 
as  successive  stages  both  were  true  and  divine  and 
each  in  its  order  served  its  purpose — the  one  as  neces- 


5O  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

sary  contrast  and  preparation  for  the  other.  Never- 
theless between  the  traditional  conservative  Jewish 
spirit  and  the  emancipated  progressive  Gentile  spirit 
there  was  an  inevitable  antagonism  which  could  not 
but  in  both  directions  burst  the  bonds  of  a  common 
unity  and  put  itself  outside  of  the  true  Christian 
principle. 

We  may  anticipate  that  the  first  Christian  heresy 
was  Judaistic  in  its  form,  that  the  tendency  to  it  ex- 
isted from  the  very  beginning  and  that  it  consisted 
in  a  more  or  less  partial  and  incomplete  acceptance 
of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  Between  some  sort  of 
a  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  and  the  acceptance  of  him  in 
the  fulness  and  reality  of  his  divine  and  human  person 
and  work  there  is  a  scale  that  runs  from  nothing  to 
everything. 

The  heresy  which  embodied  this  Jewish  imperfect 
conception  of  the  person  of  Christ  assumed  a  form 
which  under  many  modifications  became  known  as 
Ebionism.  We  have  called  it  Jewish  and  we  shall 
see  how  naturally  it  originated  out  of  and  how  closely 
it  is  akin  to  the  essential  principle  of  Judaism ;  but 
the  term  "  Ebionism  "  is  very  convenient  to  designate 
a  point  of  view  from  which  it  is  always  possible  and 
probable  that  the  person  of  our  Lord  will  be  re- 
garded ;  it  is  on  one  side  of  almost  every  Christo- 
logical  question  that  has  arisen  or  can  arise  and  it 
is  therefore  well  for  us  to  devote  a  little  space  to  its 
history  and  exposition. 

When  one  reflects  upon  it  it  might  seem  that  Ju- 
daism was  the  least  likely  source  from  which  Chris- 
tianity should  or  could  have  originated,  unless  we 


The  Mission  of  Judaism.  51 

regard  it  as  having  done  so  by  reaction  to  principles 
the  most  opposed  and  apparently  contradictory  to  it. 
Judaism  was  not  only  the  most  narrow  and  exclusive 
but  the  most  deistic  and  legal  of  religions,  and  Chris- 
tianity is  the  least  so.  This  contrast  between  two 
systems  of  which  the  first  was  the  divine  preparation 
for  the  second  and  the  second  the  divine  outcome 
of  the  first  will  not  surprise  us  if  we  understand  in 
what  way  they  bore  this  reciprocal  relation  to  each 
other. 

In  the  first  place  the  mission  of  Judaism  was  to 
emphasize  the  difference  and  the  distance  between 
God  and  the  world  and  between  God  and  man.  Its 
object  was  to  break  up  the  pantheistic,  heathen  con- 
fusion of  the  two,  and  to  do  this  as  a  necessary 
preparation  for  substituting  for  the  merely  natural, 
immanental  and  necessary  relationship  between  God 
and  the  world  a  spiritual,  moral  and  personal  rela- 
tionship between  them.  Judaism,  coining  between 
the  heathen  pantheistic  or  substantial  identity  of  God 
and  his  creation  and  the  Christian  theistic  or  personal 
unity  of  God  and  his  creation,  was  designed  to  pull 
down  the  former  in  order  to  prepare  for  the  erection 
of  the  latter.  It  separates  in  order  to  unite,  magni- 
fies the  distance  in  order  to  render  possible  the  ap- 
proach and  the  nearness,  emphasizes  the  infinite  dif- 
ference, the  duality,  in  order  to  bring  about  the  atone- 
ment, the  union  and  unity  of  God  with  his  no  longer 
merely  natural  and  necessary  but  now  spiritual,  free 
and  moral  creatures. 

It  was  part  in  the  second  place  of  the  above  divine 
plan  that  Judaism  was  essentially  a  legal  or  moral 


52  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

system,  that  it  represented  the  principle  of  law  as 
contradistinguished  not  only  from  mere  natural  and 
animal  impulse  behind  it  but  from  the  principle  of 
grace  or  gospel  before  it.  It  was  intended  to  develop 
man  in  his  independence  of  God,  to  educate  in  him 
the  ethical  or  moral  principle  of  personal  autonomy 
and  responsibility  and  make  him  a  law  to  himself 
and  to  teach  him  by  experience  the  necessity  and 
blessedness  of  obedience  to  that  law  and  the  curse 
of  disobedience  or  unrighteousness.  In  a  word  the 
end  of  the  law  under  Judaism  was  to  make  man 
moral  in  preparation  for  making  him  spiritual,  to  con- 
vert his  unconscious,  natural  and  necessary  relation 
and  dependence  upon  God  into  a  conscious,  personal 
and  free  one,  to  make  his  will  his  own  that  he  might 
make  it  God's.  It  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  evolu- 
tion of  a  true  manhood  that  it  should  learn  both  its 
independence  and  its  dependence  upon  Qod,  both 
that  God  cannot  make  it  without  itself,  without  the 
free  and  perfect  exercise  of  its  own  will,  and  that  it 
cannot  make  itself  without  God,  without  a  free  and 
perfect  realizing  in  itself  of  the  divine  will.  The  de- 
sign and  result  of  the  law  was  thus  a  double  one,  to 
teach  at  once  the  necessity  and  the  impossibility  of  a 
personal  human  righteousness.  Man  only  becomes 
man  by  asserting  himself  in  his  freedom  against  an 
environment  of  mere  nature  and  necessity,  but  equally 
he  only  becomes  himself  by  surrendering  the  freedom 
so  asserted  to  the  personal  will  and  wisdom  that  is 
above  nature  and  necessity.  But  it  is  characteristic 
of  a  system  of  mere  divine  law  and  not  grace  that  it 
casts  man  off  upon  himself ;  it  requires  of  him  to  be- 


Heathenism,  Judaism,  Christianity.      53 

come  himself  in  and  by  himself  and  so,  beginning 
with  building  him  up  in  his  independence,  ends  by 
casting  him  down  in  the  discovery  and  consciousness 
of  his  utter  dependence.  It  might  be  said  that  it  is 
the  method  of  God  to  unchild  men  by  nature  in  order 
to  make  them  his  children  by  grace,  to  cast  them  upon 
themselves  so  as  to  compel  them  to  come  back  to  him 
of  themselves,  to  want  and  seek  him  through  faith, 
and  to  become  anew  his  children  by  the  higher  per- 
sonal bond  of  mutual  love, — for  so  alone  could  the 
natural,  necessary,  immanental  relation  and  depen- 
dence of  all  things  alike  upon  God  pass  up  into  the 
free,  filial,  spiritual  relation  and  dependence  of  finite 
personalities  upon  the  infinite  divine  Person. 

Judaism  however,  while  it  fully  accepted  and  ac- 
centuated its  mission  as  against  heathenism  which  it 
displaced,  perhaps  not  unnaturally  did  not  equally 
comprehend  and  accept  its  relation  to  Christianity 
which  was  to  displace  it.  It  stood  midway  between 
the  two  with  a  deism  that  was  indeed  free  enough 
from  pantheism,  that  had  separated  widely  enough 
between  God  and  the  world,  but  that  was  just  as 
far  behind  that  true  theism  which  through  the  truths 
of  the  Trinity  and  the  incarnation  was  to  reconcile  and 
reunite  God  and  the  world ;  and  with  a  moral  law 
which  was  no  longer  mere  naturalism  and  necessity 
but  which  equally  fell  short  of  the  true  law  of  grace 
and  love  and  life  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  so  Judaism, 
exclusive  from  behind  as  against  heathenism,  excluded 
itself  no  less  from  before  from  the  Christianity  of 
which  it  was  itself  the  preparation  and  the  precursor. 

It  was  this  spirit  of  partial  preparation  for  Christian- 


54  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

ity  and  yet  of  essential  unpreparedness  for  the  dis- 
tinctive principle  of  Christianity  which  in  the  bosom 
of  the  infant  church  rejected  in  the  very  act  of  accept- 
ing it.  It  was  the  first  form  of  that  antichristianity 
which  under  its  own  name  contradicts  and  destroys 
Christianity.  To  it  it  was  impossible  that  there  should 
be  a  real  incarnation  for,  standing  by  its  very  nature 
and  position  for  the  eternal  and  infinite  distinction 
between  God  and  the  world  of  things  and  men,  it 
was  unable  to  see  any  difference  between  the  panthe- 
istic identification  of  the  two  of  heathenism  and  the 
theistic  union  and  unity  of  the  two  of  Christianity. 
Both  alike  to  it  blasphemed  God  in  making  God  one 
with  his  creatures  or  any  creature  one  with  God. 
Judaistic  Ebionism  accepted  Christianity  as  the  high- 
est law  or  the  highest  realization  and  expression  of 
the  law  and  Christ  himself  as  the  highest  man  or  the 
highest  prophet, — but  beyond  this  it  would  not  and 
could  not  go.  To  recognize  a  personal  divine,  an  in- 
carnation of  God,  either  that  of  the  Logos  in  Jesus 
Christ  himself  or  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  re- 
generate divine  life  of  those  who  are  in  Christ,  was 
above  and  beyond  its  ken. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  give  a  full  historical  account 
of  Ebionism  in  its  various  modifications  and  changes. 
After  it  had  separated  itself  or  been  excluded  from 
the  church  and  become  a  sect  in  opposition  to  it,  it 
took  its  name  as  was  early  supposed  from  a  leader 
by  the  name  of  Ebion,  but  probably  from  the  appli- 
cation to  it  of  the  Hebrew  term  signifying  "  poor," 
which  it  accepted  upon  the  ground  that  Christianity 
is  a  call  to  that  poverty  to  which  its  founder  attached 


Ebionism.  55 

the  first  "blessedness."  But  as  a  hostile  principle 
within  the  church  long  prior  to  its  exclusion  and  sep- 
arate existence  we  are  familiar  with  it  in  the  form  of 
that  deadly  animosity  which  dogged  the  footsteps 
and  hindered  the  labors  of  St.  Paul  and  for  a  hun- 
dred years  after  his  death  spared  no  effort  to  damn 
his  memory  and  efface  his  influence.  It  was  at  first 
purely  Judaic  in  the  sense  that  has  been  described 
but  later,  through  Essene  and  Gnostic  intermixtures, 
it  contracted  certain  other  features  from  without. 
Yielding  to  the  necessity  of  regarding  Jesus  as  more\ 
than  a  mere  man  no  matter  how  high  or  gifted,  it 
came  to  represent  him  as  the  incarnation  of  a  higher 
being  though  still  a  creature,  who  is  or  is  to  be  the 
prince  of  the  world  to  come  as  Satan  is  the  prince  of 
this  world. 

Ebionism  would  be  unworthy  of  even  the  incom- 
plete notice  we  have  given  it  in  the  treatment  of  a 
period  that  had  outgrown  and  discarded  it  but  for 
two  reasons. 

In  the  first  place  it  has  come  to  be  assumed  as 
established  among  a  large  class  of  historical  students 
that  Ebionism  not  only  lurked  as  a  leaven  of  Jew- 
ish conservatism  and  obstructionism  in  the  bosom  of 
primitive  Christianity  but  was  itself  original  Chris- 
tianity— the  Christianity  of  Jesus  and  of  the  real 
apostles.  According  to  this  view  the  simple  human 
moral  and  religious  teaching  of  Jesus  began  first  in 
the  active  and  fertile  mind  of  St.  Paul  that  process 
of  idealistic  transformation  which  converted  it  finally 
into  the  catholic  religion  of  the  world.  It  is  not  for 
us  to  enter  into  controversy  with  a  position  which  to 


56  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

a  mind  that  has  once  felt  the  inherent  and  inevita- 
ble truth  and  power  of  essential  Christianity  becomes 
thenceforth  inconceivable  and  impossible.  That  Chris- 
tianity was  not  the  truth  that  outgrew  and  cast  off 
Ebionism  as  a  remnant  in  it  of  Jewish  error  but  that 
Ebionism  was  the  truth  from  which  Christianity  de- 
veloped as  an  error ;  that  not  Jesus  and  his  apostles 
but  false  apostles  and  teachers,  who  perverted  and 
transformed  their  simple  and  natural  doctrine,  are  the 
real  founders  of  historical  Christianity ;  that  Chris- 
tianity is  not  a  divine  incarnation,  atonement,  re- 
demption and  eternal  salvation  and  life  for  all  men 
but  only  a  stupendous  human  creation  of  the  imagi- 
nation erected  upon  the  slender  foundation  of  the 
natural  goodness  and  piety  of  a  mere  man — this  is  the 
modern  form  in  which  the  earliest  Christian  heresy 
has  been  resuscitated  and  flourishes  in  our  own  day. 
If  what  is  thus  claimed  had  been  indeed  the  whole  of 
primitive  Christianity  the  world  would  never  have 
become  Christian ;  if  it  be  proved  now  to  be  all  of  it 
the  world  will  soon  cease  to  be  Christian. 

The  other  reason  why  we  have  thought  it  well  to 
dwell  thus  much  upon  Ebionism  is  that  after  it  had 
passed  away  under  that  name  and  in  its  primitive 
(form  it  continued  to  reappear  in  other  and  higher 
forms  which  however  different  in  appearance  were 
identical  with  it  in  principle  and  connected  with  it 
in  origin.  The  course  that  it  ran  within  the  period 
under  our  consideration  was  briefly  the  following : 

At  the  close  of  the  second  and  beginning  of  the 
third  centuries,  Theodotus^aad^Artemon  taught-ifr 
Rome  the  doctrine  of  the  mere  manhood  of  our  Lord 


Artemon  and  Paul  of  Samosata.        57 

and  were  successively  excommunicated  by  Bishops 
Victor  and  Zephyrinus.  They  claimed  to  represent  the\ 
primitive  truth  of  the  church  which  they  alleged  was 
now  for  the  first  time  perverted  from  its  simplicity  in 
Rome  itself.  But  how  much  value  need  be  attached 
to  this  claim  may  be  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  Arte- 
mon distinctly  charges  Zephyrinus  with  being  the 
first  perverter  of  the  truth  in  condemning  his  teach- 
ing, whereas  the  preceding  bishop,  Victor,  had  passed 
the  same  condemnation  upon  the  same  teaching  by 
his  predecessor  in  the  heresy,  Theodotus. 

The  one  representative  of  the  heresy  who  attained 
prominence  was  Paul  of  Samosata,  metropolitan  of 
Antioch,  who  was  deposed  and  excommunicated  in 
the  year  269.  Paul  affirmed  distinctly  the  mere  man- 
hoocLoLjQiirJLord,  He  ,  held  .indeed  that  the  divine 
Logos_was_incarnate  _ia  Jiim  but  he  denied  both  the 
personality  of  the  Logos  and  the  reality  of  the  incar- 
nadon  in  any  other  sense  jthan  that  in  .  which  the  wis- 
dom and  grace  of  God  may  be  incarnate  in  any  man. 
"  Wisdom  dwelt  in  him  as  in  no  other,"  that  is  to  say, 
in_d^gree_but  notjn  kind.  The  indwelling  was  not 
thaLoJLa..person  but  of  a  quality  or  character.  Jesus 

...the.  se.nse  that  he  .was  God 


become  man  but  man  become  as  God.     "  The  deity 

•    ~r~      n  "™"  '    —  ••    •"•     '  ~~~  •  ----  :  —  —  -  ••*     """  |i 

grew_by_gradual  progress  out  of  the  humanity  "  (In.  / 
TrpoKOTrqs  eOeoTroirjOT],  z%  avQp&Tcuv  JKJOVE  6eog).  The  ac- 
tion of  the  two  or  three  synods  in  Antioch  that  finally 
exposed  and  condemned  the  heresy  is  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  its  novelty  and  strangeness  in  the  church. 
Paul  succeeded  in  veiling  and  concealing  his  real  error 
under  orthodox  expressions  until  he  was  confronted  by 


58  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

an  expert  dialectician,  who  succeeded,  in  the  language 
of  Dr.  Neale,  "  in  exposing  the  subterfuges  of  the 
heretic,  pursuing  him  to  his  last  shifts,  and  reducing 
his  dogmas  to  their  naked  deformity." 

Among  the  alleged  followers  of  Paul  of  Samosata 
and  for  that  reason  involved  in  his  condemnation  and 
for  a  long  time  separated  from  the  communion  of  the 
church  was  the  famous  Lucian,  probably  one  of  the 
first  of  the  great  teachers  of  that  famous  school  of 
Antioch  with  whose  part  in  Christological  science  we 
are  hereafter  to  become  familiar. 

Beside  having  his  name  associated  with  that  of 
Paul,  Lucian  had  the  additional  misfortune  to  be  after- 
ward claimed  and  revered  as  their  master  by  most 
of  the  great  representatives  of  Arianism,  so  much  so 
as  to  acquire  the  reputation  of  being  its  real  author. 
It  is  not  probable  that  Lucian  was  guilty  of  the  errors 
of  either  Paul  or  Arius ;  he  died  in  the  full  communion 
of  the  church  the  glorious  death  of  a  martyr.  But 
his  name  links  together  two  heresies  which  however 
otherwise  different  agree  in  this,  that  they  represent 
the  principle  of  Ebionism  and  succeed  each  other  his- 
torically in  the  denial  of  the  true  divinity  of  the  per- 
son and  work  of  Jesus  Christ.  Dr.  Newman,  in  his 
"  Arians  of  the  Fourth  Century,"  has  clearly  traced 
the  presence  and  influence  of  Judaism  in  both  Samo- 
satenism  and  Arianism.  Paul's  great  patroness  Zeno- 
bia  was  a  Jewess,  and  Paul  himself  was  more  than 
anything  else  a  courtier  and  politician.  Judaism  at 
the  time  was  experiencing  a  revival  and  was  exert- 
ing a  living  and  potent  influence  on  the  thought  and 
life  of  Syria,  and  that  it  indirectly  influenced  not 


Sdmosatenism  and  Arianism.  59 

only  the  theology  of  Paul  of  Samosata  but  also  that  of 
the  greater  heresy  which  was  to  rack  the  church  and 
the  world  during  all  the  succeeding  century  was  not 
only  testified  to  by  the  consciousness  of  the  great 
fathers  engaged  in  it  but  will  also  appear  in  the  analy- 
sis of  its  character  and  essential  principles.  Mean- 
time that  there  was  an  historical  connection  between 
Samosatenism  and  Arianism  will  appear  from  such 
testimony  as  the  following.  Bishop  Alexander, 
under  whom  about  the  year  318  Arianism  broke  out 
in  the  city  of  Alexandria — though  its  real  origin  was 
not  there — writes  concerning  it  to  the  church  of  Con- 
stantinople :  "You  are  not  ignorant  that  this  rebel-] 
lious  doctrine  belongs  to  Ebion  and  Artemas  and  is 
in  imitation  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  bishop  of  Antioch, 
who  was  excommunicated  by  the  sentence  of  the  bish- 
ops assembled  in  council  from  all  quarters.  Paulus 
was  succeeded  by  Lucian,  who  remained  in  separation 
for  many  years.  Our  present  heretics  have  drunk  up 
the  dregs  of  the  impiety  of  these  men  and  are  their 
secret  offspring.  Accordingly  they  have  been  ex- 
pelled from  the  church  as  enemies  of  the  pious  catho- 
lic teaching  according  to  St.  Paul's  sentence,  '  If  any 
man  preach  any  other  gospel  to  you  than  that  ye  7 
have  received,  let  him  be  anathema.' ' 

By  a  not  more  remote  bond  than  that  which  con- 
nects Paul  of  Samosata  and  Arius  we  may  unite  Anus 
and  Nestorius,  who  are  far  enough  apart  in  the  gen- 
eral character  of  their  heresies  but  are  alike  in  this 
that  they  are  ecclesiastical  successors  in  the  practical, 
if  not  intentional  denial  of  the  true  divinity  of  the) 
person  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  the  mediaeval  world  the 


60  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

tendency  was  taken  up  again  and  represented  by 
Adoptionism.  In  the  modern  world  the  type  has 
reverted  to  its  earliest  form  and  we  begin  over  again 
with  a  humanitarianism  which  is  a  revival  in  modern 
scientific  guise  of  the  primitive  Ebionism.  * 

We  might  perhaps  say  that  as  Ehionism  was  the  nat- 
ural Jewish._per  version  of  Christianity  so  its  heathen 
or  Greek^jQnental  natural  perversion  was  Dpcetism, 
and  of  this  we  must  next  endeavor  to  give  an  account. 

The  world  which  enveloped  both  Judaism  and 
Christianity  was  at  once  Oriental  and  Greek  in  that 
combination  of  the  two  which  appeared  at  its  height 
in  the  great  city  of  Alexandria.  The  leading  char- 
acteristic of  this  Greek  world  of  the  East,  so  far  as 
concerns  our  subject,  is  that  it  was  vastly  more  intel- 
lectual and  speculative  than  it  was  practical  or  moral ; 
it  was  more  concerned  with  thought  than  with  con- 
duct or  life.  If  what  had  concerned  the  best  mind  of 
the  Jews  was  righteousness,  what  concerned  that  of 
these  Greeks  was  wisdom.  We  might  say  that  this 
was  true  of  the  Greek  mind  altogether  if  we  did  not 
remember  Socrates  and  the  schools  of  some  of  his 
best  successors.  But  the  moral  earnestness  of  these 
had  mostly  passed  with  Stoicism  over  to  the  Romans 
and  even  the  best  Greek  theology  of  the  age  we  are 
about  to  study  is  characterized  by  this  difference  from 
Latin  theology,  that  while  it  primarily  at  least  and 
predominantly  treats  Christianity  as  a  revelation  of 
truth,  the  latter  regards  it  as  a  law  of  righteousness 
and  a  communication  of  life.  The  general  tendency 
thus  of  the  Alexandrian  Greek  mind  was  already  in 
the  direction  of  Docetism — to  dwell  more  upon  the 


Dualism.  61 

manifestation  of  the  divine  in  our  Lord's  person  and 
life  than  upon  the  reality  and  significance  of  the  hu- 
man ;  and  we  shall  have  occasion  to  trace  this  dispo- 
sition in  even  the  most  illustrious  representatives  of 
Alexandrian  Christianity. 

The  religious  speculation  which  Christianity  found 
already  in  vogue  in  the  active  intellectual  world  of 
which  Alexandria  was  the  capital  was  largely  devoted 
to  questions  of  cosmogony  and  cosmology,  of  the  re- 
lations between  Creator  and  creation,  between  spirit 
and  matter.  And  when  we  remember  how  soon  in 
Christianity  a  cosmical  significance  was  attached  to  the 
person  and  work  of  our  Lord  not  only  through  the 
Logos  doctrine  of  St.  John  but  also  in  the  earlier  teach- 
ing of  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  Colossians  and 
Hebrews,  we  shall  not  be  surprised  at  the  affinity  be- 
tween this  aspect  of  Christianity  and  those  outside 
philosophical  speculations  or  that  these  latter  should 
have  eagerly  clutched  at  many  features  of  Christo- 
logical  doctrine  as  easily  lending  themselves  to  their 
use  and  promising  solutions  to  some  of  their  most 
difficult  problems. 

The  insuperable  difficulty  of  cosmological  specula- 
tion in  all  time  has  been  the  coexistence  in  one  world 
of  good  and  evil.  The  contradiction  and  endless  con- 
flict of  these  two  opposites  has  baffled  all  attempts  to 
reduce  to  a  single  principle  that  universe  whose  very 
title  bears  witness  to  the  fact  that  it  is  a  necessity  of 
thought  to  think  of  it  as  a  unit,  instead  of  which  the 
irreconcilability  of  these  two  elements,  always  side 
by  side,  only  throws  the  mind  back  again  and  again 
upon  some  form  of  dualism.  Either  there  are  two! 


62  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

gods  or  God  and  matter  are  coeternal  and  conflicting 
sources  of  opposite  impulses  and  activities  or  if  all 
things  come  from  an  original  single  first  cause  they 
cannot  all  alike  have  proceeded  immediately  from  it. 
There  must  have  intervened  a  series  of  intermediate 
gradual  removes  and  lapses  in  the  course  of  which 
changes,  declensions  and  even  contradictions  have 
entered  into  the  working  of  things,  and  the  immedi- 
ate cause  or  causes  of  the  world  as  it  is  must  be  very 
far  removed  from  its  primal  cause  and  purpose. 

This  last  device  of  successive  emanations  (aeons) 
from  the  great  first  principle  of  the  universe,  ending 
in  such  variations  from  it  as  to  produce  confusion,  con- 
tradiction and  evil,  is  the  basis  of  the  powerful  sys- 
tems of  Gnosticism,  which  were  the  dominant  fact  of 
external  religious  speculation  confronting  Christianity 
almost  from  the  moment  of  its  inception,  and  which 
carried  a  priori  speculation  to  a  point  perhaps  never 
elsewhere  paralleled. 

Christianity  itself  lays  claim  to  the  true  gnosis; 
it  affirms  that  all  the  treasures  of  not  only  faith  and 
life  but  wisdom  and  knowledge  also  are  contained  in 
the  true  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  maintains  that 
in  him  are  solved  all  the  mysteries  of  creation  and  its 
final  destination,  of  evil  and  its  uses,  of  redemption 
cosmical  as  well  as  human,  of  the  ultimate  recapitu- 
lation and  reconciliation  of  all  things  in  God  under 
Jesus  Christ  as  their  head.  Such  suggestions  could 
not  but  be  eagerly  seized  and  furnish  endless  fuel 
to  the  flame  of  Gnostic  speculation.  Gnosticism 
might  almost  be  said  to  have  taken  Christianity  and 
run  away  with  it.  But  while  Gnosticism  thus  in  a 


Gnosticism.  63 


sense  became  Christian,  Christianity  itself  refused  to^i 
become  Gnostic.  In  many  different  forms  Christolo- 
gies  arose  so  remote  from  the  sober  truth  of  Christ 
as  wholly  to  cease  to  be  Christian.  The  so-called 
Christian  gnosis  was  not  at  all  Christianity  making  use 
of  outside  philosophical  principles  or  methods ;  it  was 
outside  philosophy  of  the  most  recklessly  speculative 
type  availing  itself  of  Christian  ideas  and  suggestions 
and  perverting  them  to  its  uses  and  ends. 

A  serious  obstacle  stood  in  the  way  of  the  appro- 
priation by  Gnosticism  of  the  real  matter  of  Chris- 
tianity. The  essence  of  Christianity  is  the  doctrine 
of  a  divine  incarnation,  and  the  principle  of  the  in- 
herent evil  of  nature  and  matter,  inseparable  from 
the  dualistic  character  of  that  philosophy,  rendered 
any  real  incarnation  in  it  of  the  Highest  an  impossi- 
bility. And  this  was  the  immediate  cause  of  Doce- 
tism.  The  result  was  in  all  the  Gnostic  Christologies 
a  more  or  less  unreal  or  Docetic  theory  of  incarnation 
according  to  which  our  Lord  assumed  not  actual  flesh 
and  blood,  not  an  actual  human  nature  and  human 
experiences  such  as  our  own,  but  a  mere  semblance 
or  outward  appearance  of  all  these. 

Such  a  mere  product  or  feature  of  Gnostic  specu- 
lation as  the  Docetism  which  thus  originated  on  the 
outside  of  Christianity  we  need  not  for  its  own  sake 
have  paused  thus  to  notice ;  but  the  spirit  or  princi-i 
pie  of  Docelism,  like  that  of  Ebionism,  very  soon  in-j 
vaded  Christianity  itself.  The_twp  are,  one  or  the 
other  of  them,  at  the___rqot_pf__all_  its  perversions  Jn 
opposite  directions,  and  they  are  equally  subtle,  per- 
vasive and  destructive  of  its  essential  truth. 


64  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

Tendencies  to  Docetism  along  with  other  Gnostic 
elements  are  as  old  as  the  New  Testament,  where — 
beside  hints  of  it  from  St.  Paul — St.  John  is  com- 
pelled to  assert  and  emphasize  the  reality  of  even  our 
Lord's  body  or  flesh.  Indeed  one  of  the  earliest  and 
strongest  circumstantial  evidences  of  the  primitiveness 
of  the  catholic  truth  if  not  yet  the  explicit  catholic 
doctrine  of  the  divine-human  personality  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  from  the  first,  if 
there  was  a  tendency  on  one  side  to  deny  his  divin- 
!  ity,  there  was  an  equally  strong  one  on  the  other  to 
\deny  the  reality  of  his  humanity.  If  this  tendency 
had  remained  on  the  outside  or  even  on  the  outer 
side  of  Christianity,  or  if  it  had  any  more  than  Ebion- 
ism  been  really  when  it  was  apparently  got  rid  of 
by  the  later  action  of  the  church,  it  would  be  useless 
now  to  resuscitate  even  the  memory  of  it.  But  it 
crept  in  the  early  centuries  into  the  inner  heart  of  the 
church  while  this  was  intent  only  upon  excluding 
from  itself  the  opposite  vice  of  Ebionism,  and  while 
it  was  denied  in  terms  by  the  lips  of  several  general 
councils  it  was  never  successfully  exorcised,  as  we 
shall  see,  from  sentiment  and  life. 

We  must  remember  how  quickly  Christianity  passed 
out  of  Hebrew  into  Greek  thought  and  expression. 
And  so  long  as  it  continued  Greek,  which  was  dur- 
ing all  the  period  of  the  general  councils,  along  with 
many  advantages  as  regarded  its  science  it  was  more 
or  less  subject  to  the  Greek  tendency  to  regard  itself 
rather  as  revealing  God  than  as  redeeming  men.  In- 
deed its  temptation  was  to  make  redemption  synony- 
mous with  enlightenment,  just  as  even  Socrates  the 


Docetism.  65 

most  ethical  of  Greeks  identified  virtue  with  know- 
ledge. But  Christianity  is,  in  order  at  least  of  im- 
portance, even  more  a  communication  of  power  and 
life  than  a  revelation  of  truth;  it  is  primarily  a  fact 
and  an  experience  and  only  secondarily  a  science. 
It  is  God  our  life  and  our  righteousness  and  only  as 
such  our  wisdom  and  our  light.  It  is  only  a  personal 
and  moral  interest,  a  sense  of  ourselves,  our  responsi- 
bilities, weaknesses  and  wants,  our  need  of  God,  sal- 
vation and  eternal  life,  that  enables  us  to  know  either  the 
necessity  or  the  meaning  of  a  divine  incarnation.  God 
comes  not  to  manifest  only  but  also  to  communicate 
himself  to  us.  If  mere  knowledge  and  enlightenment 
were  all  that  is  necessary  to  our  salvation  a  Docetic 
Christ,  an  ideal  Christ,  a  true  representation  though 
it  be  only  a  representation  of  the  realization  of  God 
in  man  and  man  in  God  would  be  all  we  need.  But 
we  do  not  want  only  to  know  God ;  we  want  God. 
We  do  not  want  a  picture  of  redemption ;  we  want  to 
be  redeemed. 

To  the  heart  that  so  wants  God  and  what  God  has 
to  give  the  only  incarnation  is  one  that  is  as  real  in  its 
humanity  and  in  its  effects  and  results  in  humanity  as 
it  is  in  the  actuality  and  power  and  glory  of  its  divinity. 
For  a  long  time  the  church  was  so  wholly  taken  up  with 
exposing  and  excluding  false  or  insufficient  views  of  the 
divine  nature  of  our  Lord  that  it  passed  over  and  was 
unconscious  of  no  less  false  and  insufficient  views  of  his 
human  nature.  It  had  not  itself  as  yet  realized  how 
vitally  necessary  it  was  that  the  flesh  of  the  divine  in- 
carnation, the  humanity  of  the  incarnate  Lord,  should 
be  known  to  be — what  it  was — not  a  part  and  that 


66  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

the  lowest  but  the  whole,  the  totality  of  a  complete 
human  nature,  soul  and  spirit  as  well  as  body.  It  had 
not  yet  fully  felt  the  necessity  to  a  real  incarnation  of 
the  very  humanity  of  our  Lord,  not  only  through  his 
whole  nature  but  also  through  his  whole  personal  hu- 
man life  and  experiences ;  that  it  was  not  only  essen- 
tial he  should  have  truly  hungered  and  thirsted,  been 
weary  and  suffered  and  died,  but  that  he  should  also 
have  been  humanly  ignorant  and  weak,  been  tempted, 
have  prayed,  believed,  received  grace  and  been  saved, 
have  overcome  sin  and  conquered  death.  It  did  not 
realize  sufficiently  that  it  was  possible  to  reprobate 
and  reject  Docetism  when  applied  to  the  lower  and 
merely  material  parts  of  our  Lord's  humanity  and  yet 
take  a  Docetic  position  toward  the  higher  and  really 
essential  aspects  and  activities  of  it ;  to  recognize  his 
humanity  in  the  merely  physical  and  necessary  func- 
tions of  his  life  as  man  and  ignore  or  deny  it  in  those 
spiritual,  moral  and  personal  acts  and  activities  in 
which  all  the  truth  and  use  of  his  human  life  lay.  For 
if  it  was  what  God  was  and  did  in  Jesus  Christ  that 
was  the  cause  and  condition,  it  was  what  humanity 
was  enabled  to  do  and  to  become  in  him  that  was  the 
actual  matter  and  res  of  human  salvation,  viz.,  that 
through  trials  and  suffering  and  death  it  became  free 
from  sin  and  alive 'from  death.  In  that  he  as  man 
separated  humanity  from  sin  and  raised  it  from  death 
all  humanity  was  redeemed  and  regenerated. 

After  the  Nicene  Council  had  disposed  of  all  the 
objections  to  our  Lord's  true  divinity  the  church  was 
first  fully  awakened  to  the  prevalence  of  the  opposite 
error  by  the  teaching  of  Apollinaris,  who  about  the 


Apollinarianism  and  Eutychianism.     67 

year  375  enunciated  the  heresy  that  went  under 
his  name.  According  to  Apollinaris,  the  humanity 
assumed  in  the  incarnation  was  limited  to  that  of  a 
true  human  body  and  the  natural  or  animal  soul ;  the  * 
rational  and  spiritual  parts  and  functions  were  sup- 
plied by  the  Logos.  It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  the 
life  of  Jesus  was  not  then  that  of  a  man  but  that  of 
a  divine  person  in  the  mere  form  or  mode  of  visibil- 
ity of  physical  manhood. 

Apollinarianism  was  condemned  in  the  Second 
General  Council,  A.  D.  381.  But  the  higher  Doce- 
tism  reappeared  in  EutycJiianism,  which  while  assert- 
ing the  integrity  and  completeness  in  all  its  parts, 
body,  soul  and  spirit,  of  the  humanity  assumed  in  ' 
the  incarnation,  yet  so  subordinated  the  human  to  the 
divine,  so  absorbed  the  tvepyeta  or  proper  activity  and 
freedom  of  the  lower  nature  into  that  of  the  higher 
as  practically  to  annul  the  real  manhood. 

Eutychianism  in  turn  was  condemned  in  the 
Fourth  General  Council  of  A.  D.  451,  but  the  heresy 
was  not  dead  and  lived  on  with  great  vigor  and 
ability  through  the  Monophysite  and  Monothelite 
controversies  which  having  occupied  two  more  gen- 
eral councils  and  having  filled  more  than  two  cen- 
turies with  dissension  and  confusion  left  Oriental 
Christendom  hopelessly  and  permanently  divided  into 
hostile  camps. 

Within  the  catholic  church  itself,  after  and  in 
spite  of  the  condemnation  of  general  councils,  the 
higher  Docetism  or  practical  denial  of  our  Lord's  hu- 
manity in  its  higher  aspects  and  functions  resumed 
its  sway  after  the  period  of  the  general  councils.  In 


68  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

the  undiscriminating  and  wholesale  rejection  of  Adop- 
tionism  the  Christianity  of  the  middle  ages  crushed 
out  the  last  effort  before  the  Reformation  to  attach 
a  due  and  proportionate  and  vital  importance  to  that 
very  and  complete  humanity  in  all  its  parts  and  func- 
tions which  our  Lord  assumed  and  in  which  alone 
he  was  very  and  indeed  man  or  accomplished  a  veri- 
table redemption  and  completion  of  human  nature. 

We  have  thus  endeavored  to  expose  and  trace  in 
preliminary  outline  the  two  opposite  natural  ten- 
dencies that  were  the  causes  of  all  the  deflections  of 
Christian  doctrine  from  the  beginning  to  right  or 
left  of  that  straight  course  which  it  was  the  mission 
and  the  effort  of  catholic  thought  to  preserve  in  its 
orderly  evolution  or  unfolding.  In  the  First,  Third 
and  Fifth  councils  it  was  Ebionism  that  the  church 
condemned  in  the  developed  forms  of  Arianism  and 
Nestorianism.  In  the  Second,  Fourth  and  Sixth  it 
rejected  Docetism  under  the  subtler  forms  of  Apolli- 
narianism,  Eutychianism,  Monophysitism  and  Mo- 
nothelitism. 

Thus  oscillating  between  tendencies  in  opposite 
directions  it  was  enabled  to  maintain  its  true  direc- 
tion between  them  with — until  modern  times — a 
leaning  rather  to  the  side  of  the  divinity  to  the  det- 
riment of  the  humanity  than  to  that  of  the  humanity 
at  any  cost  of  the  divinity. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

SABELLIANISM   AND   THE    BEGINNING  OF  THE 
TRINITARIAN   DISCUSSION. 

T  will  be  easily  apparent  that  a  Christol- 
ogy  that  involves  primarily  the  divin- 
ity of  our  Lord  must  go  back  into  very 
serious  questions  of  theology.  How  or 
in  what  sense  can  Jesus  Christ  be  said 
to  be  God?  And  if  we  say  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
God  can  we  then  also  say  that  God  was  Jesus  Christ  ? 
St.  John  says  that  in  the  beginning  the  Logos  was 
Geof,  God.  Apart  from  the  grammar,  may  we  say  that 
he  was  6  Qeog  ?  Was  the  whole  of  God — was,  for  ex- 
ample, the  eternal  Father — incarnate  in  Jesus  Christ  ? 
And  if  not,  then  in  what  sense  was  the  divine  Person 
who  was  incarnate  one  with  God  the  Father  and  in 
what  sense  was  he  to  be  distinguished  from  him? 
These  deep  questions  involved  necessarily  much  dis- 
cussion of  the  divine  nature  in  itself  as  well  as  in  its 
relation  to  created  nature  and  human  nature.  While 
these  questions  of  theology  were  under  discussion 
Christology  was  kept  temporarily  in  abeyance  and  it 
was  not  until  the  solution  was  found  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  that,  with  the  Apollinarian  controversy, 
Christological  discussion  proper  was  resumed. 

69 


7O  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

In  the  second  century,  as  the  result  of  the  long 
conflict  of  the  church  with  Gnosticism,  there  emerged 
the  doctrine  of  the  monarchia  or  of  God  as  the  sole 
principle  and  source  of  the  whole  universe.  The  term 
was  used  not  only  against  dualism,  the  notion  of  two 
eternal  principles  of  things,  two  gods  or  God  and 
matter,  but  also  against  the  multiplication  of  secondary 
and  derivative  principles,  aeons  or  emanations,  which 
according  to  Gnosticism  intervened  between  God  and 
created  things  and  were  the  real  causes  or  creators 
of  the  universe.  Against  these  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
monarchia,  as  it  was  originally  intended,  the  church 
asserted  that  the  one  God  was  the  sole  and  immedi- 
ate Creator  and  cause  of  all  existence. 

When  within  the  church  the  implicit  faith  that  not 
only  the  invisible  and  eternal  Father  but  also  the 
incarnate  Son  or  Word  was  God,  and  that  they  were 
so  in  a  sense  that  while  it  identified  them  in  nature 
distinguished  them  as  persons,  began  to  become  the 
subject  of  reflection  and  to  seek  for  itself  exact  and 
accurate  expression,  still  more  when  the  relation  of 
the  second  and  third  persons  to  the  first  began  to 
be  expressed  in  terms  of  physical  derivation  that 
naturally  recalled  the  emanistic  principles  of  •Gnosti- 
cism,— it  was  not  strange  that  there  should  be  those 
who  thought  the  truth  of  the  monarchia  at  stake 
again  and  who  should  assert  it  even  against  the  true 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The  simplest  way  to  do  this 
was  like  the  Ebionites  proper  to  deny  any  divinity  at 
all  or  like  the  Arians  to  deny  the  real  and  coequal 
\divinity  of  the  incarnate  Word  ;  and  this  was  Ebionitic 
'Monarchianism.  But  there  was  an  alternative  which 


Patripassian  Monarchianism.  71 

gave  rise  to  the  Sabellian  or  Patripassian  Mormr- 
chianism  to  which  the  name  became  more  generally 
applied.  At  the  time  that  Theodotus  ani.Artemon 
were  successively  preaching  in  Rome  EbioAitic  Mo- 
narchianism under  Victor,  Zephyrinus  and  Callistus, 
Praxeas  and  Noetus  were  also  successively  carrying 
thither  from  Asia  Minor  the  opposite  form  of  Mo- 
narchianism. Among  their  immediate  successors  in 
the  heresy  was  Sabellius,  of  whom  little  is  known 
but  whose  name  became  subsequently  attached  to  it 
although  he  was  neither  its  founder  nor  probably  its 
most  prominent  representative.  All  these  writers  in 
the  interest  of  the  monarchia  denied  not  the  divinity! 
of  the  Word  or  of  the  Spirit  but  their  distinction  frorrj 
the  Father.  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  accord- 
ing to  them  are  one  God  and  not  three  persons  or 
distinct  principles  of  action  within  the  Godhead  but 
only  different  manifestations  and  functions  of  the  one 
only  divine  Person,  who  is  the  sole  apxn  or  principle 
of  divine  activity  in  the  universe.  The  consequence 
was  urged  against  them :  then  6  Qebg,  the  whole  God- 
head, the  divine  Father  was  incarnate,  suffered  and 
died.  Hence  the  term  "  Patripassian,"  the  third  of 
the  three  titles  by  which  the  heresy  has  been  known 
— Monarchians,  Patripassians,  Sabellians. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  here,  any  more  than  in  previ- 
ous cases,  to  give  the  history  or  describe  the  vari- 
eties of  false  opinion  to  which  we  allude  on  the  way 
to  the  true  doctrine  of  the  incarnation.  Sabellianism, 
was  not  only  actually  or  historically,  it  was  logically 
and  of  necessity  the  first  step  in  conceiving  the  divine^ 
or  theological  side  of  the  truth  as  it  was  revealed 


72  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

I  through  Jesus  Christ.  To  the  simplest  and  most 
primitive  faith  Christ  was  simply,  God,  not  6ed? 
merely  but  6  6eo'f.  Nothing  less  than  God — not 
something,  not  anything,  not  everything  from  God 
but  God  himself — is  what  the  soul  wants;  it  was 
made  for  him  and  will  be  satisfied  only  with  him. 
It  wants  God  in  its  life,  its  suffering,  its  very  death, 
to  be  its  comfort  in  suffering,  its  life  in  death ;  it  will 
have  God  suffer  with  us,  die  for  us,  that  we  may  live 
and  be  blessed  in  him  and  with  him.  What  are  specu- 
lative difficulties  in  the  presence  of  real  experiences, 
when  one  knows  the  reality,  the  mystery  of  the  one- 
ness of  God  with  the  soul  in  its  depths  and  of  the 
soul  with  God  in  his  heights !  It  is  not  improbable 
that  Sabellianism  in  its  origin  as  in  some  of  its  recent 
reproductions  represented  the  deepest  interests  of 
religion  as  against  the  comparative  shallowness  and 
trifling  of  even  the  most  eager  and  earnest  mere  in- 
tellectual speculation. 

We  have  nevertheless  to  try  to  reconcile  real  specu- 
lative difficulties  with  religious  interest  and  experi- 
ence, and  there  is  a  difficulty  revealed  by  the  term 
"  Patripassianism."  The  difficulty  however,  in  prin- 
ciple at  least,  is  not  limited  to  this  particular  form  or 
instance. 

The  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  perhaps 
before  anything  else  an  effort  to  express  how  Jesus 
Christ  was  God  (Qebg)  and  yet  in  another  sense  was 
not  God  (6  0edf) ;  that  is  to  say,  was  not  the  whole 
Godhead.  Whatever  the  heart  may  say  in  the  ex- 
cess of  its  experience  and  sense  of  the  infinite  con- 
descension of  the  infinite  Father  of  spirits,  the  head 


The  Immanence  of  God.  73 

realizes  the  impossibility  of  saying  that  the  Godhead 
became  man  and  died  for  men.  Yet  on  the  other 
hand  the  Christian  consciousness  rejected  from  its 
deepest  depths  as  the  essence  of  irreligion  and  the 
very  principle  of  anti- Christianity  every  suggestion 
that  he  who  was  incarnate  and  died  was  anything  or 
in  any  way  less  or  other  than  the  most  high  and  the 
most  dear  God  of  its  life  and  its  salvation.  As  it 
had  rejected  all  intermediaries  between  God  and  the 
natural  creation,  so  a  thousandfold  more  it  repudiated 
all  inferior  mediation  between  God  and  his  spiritual 
creation,  between  the  infinite  Spirit  and  his  own  im- 
mediate presence  and  life  in  the  finite  spirits  which 
are  his  children.  But  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
began  with  the  task  of  reconciling  the  reality  of  an  in- 
carnation of  God  with  the  difficulties  expressed  in  one 
word  by  the  term  "  Patripassianism  "  it  went  on  to 
solve  perhaps  even  greater  and  more  difficult  prob- 
lems of  religious  thought.  There  is  no  doubt  that  it 
contains  the  Christian  theistic  refutation  of  the  uni- 
versal pantheism  of  heathenism. 

The  doctrine  of  the  divine  immanence  is  a  necessity 
of  thought.  The  idea  of  a  creation  in  any  moment 
or  at  any  point  withdrawn  or  separate  from  the  ac- 
tive intelligence,  will  or  word  of  its  conscious  Cre- 
ator is  an  absurdity  and  springs  from  the  habit  of 
thinking  of  God  as  of  ourselves.  We  must  identify 
God  with  his  creation  in  an  infinitely  more  real  and 
intimate  way  and  degree  than  any  human  worker  with 
his  work,  no  matter  how  closely  it  may  be  as  we  say 
part  of  himself.  Any  human  so-called  production, 
creation  or  work  is  only  a  change  or  redisposition  of 


74  The  Ecumenical  Cotiucils. 

things  already  existent.  Our  works  therefore  may 
live  after  us  and  be  quite  independent  of  us  but  God's 
works,  which  are  the  real  products  or  creation  of  his 
thought,  will  or  word,  can  have  no  existence  or  con- 
tinue to  exist  after  or  apart  from  his,  or  himself,  think- 
ing, willing  and  speaking.  Things  are  his  thoughts, 
his  speech,  language  or  words,  which  are  the  expres- 
sion of  himself  and  have  no  existence  apart  from 
him. 

God  is  therefore  in  his  world  in  a  sense  far  more 
intimate  and  essential  than  we  can  think  or  express. 
And  yet  on  the  other  hand  it  is  possible  to  identify 
God  too  intimately  and  essentially  with  the  world  of 
his  creatures.  We  may  make  him  so  one  as  to  be  not 
merely  identified  but  identical  with  it.  And  this  is 
just  what  pantheism  does. 

We  say  truly  that  God  is  in,  is  immanent  in  the 
world  of  created  things.  If  he  were  not  it  would  not 
be  for  it  has  no  being  except  in  him.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  man  in  his  divine  idea  and  intention  was 
predestined  to  incarnate  God,  to  be  the  form  not  only 
of  a  divine  life,  a  life  like  God's,but  also  of  the  divine 
life,  the  personal  life  of  the  personal  God  himself.  God 
was  not  merely  objectively  to  himself  to  express  or 
reveal  an  impersonal  wisdom  or  goodness ;  he  was  to 
embody  himself,  in  a  sense  to  realize  and  fulfil  him- 
self as  Father  and  as  divine  love  in  the  personal  life 
of  his  personal  children.  Now  what  we  say  of  man 
as  the  head  of  the  creation  we  may  say  of  the  creation 
itself,  which  was  recapitulated  in  Adam  as  its  natural 
head  and  is  to  be  recapitulated  in  Jesus  Christ  as  its 
spiritual  and  eternal  Head.  The  whole  creation  is 


Relation  of  God  and  the  World.         75 

already,  in  its  idea  and  intention,  and  is  predestined 
to  become  actually  as  well  as  ideally  the  living  body 
of  the  living  God — the  outward  form  and  perfect  ex- 
pression of  his  divine  Logos,  his  personal  Reason, 
Wisdom  and  Word. 

When  in  this  way  we  identify  God  and  the 
world  and  say  that  he  is  to  fulfil  or  realize  himself 
in  the  world,  which  is  to  become  as  it  were  an  out- 
ward form  and  body  of  himself  and  not  merely  an 
external  and  impersonal  expression  of  his  wisdom  and 
power,  we  do  not  mean  that  the  world  is  going  to 
become  the  Godhead  or  the  Godhead  the  world.  In 
one  sense  he  will  become  it  and  it  will  become  he 
but  in  another  sense  he  will  forever  remain  above  it 
and  he  and  it  can  never  be  identical.  Christianity 
expresses  this  distinction  by  teaching  that  that  which 
is  immanent  and  is  noumenally,  not  phenomenally,  re- 
vealed of  God  in  the  universe  is  Geof,  not  6  Geo^.  It 
is  his  Logos,  his  personal  Thought,  Will  and  Word, 
who  is  himself  to  the  extent  of  identifying  him  in  per- 
son with  the  world  but  not  himself  to  the  extent  of 
making  him  identical  in  substance  with  the  world. 
By  ignoring  these  distinctions  in  God  and  in  the 
mode  of  his  presence  in  things  and  in  men,  pantheism 
makes  him  and  them  identical.  The  world  is  the 
visible  body  and  manifestation  of  him,  of  'his  divine 
essence  and  substance,  and  not  merely  of  his  personal 
thought  and  activity.  The  whole  Godhead  is  so  in 
and  of  as  not  to  be  also  above  and  outside  of  the 
world  of  phenomena.  While  true  Christian  theism 
sees  God  in  Christ  as  not  only  ideal  humanity  but 
also  the  ideal  cosmos  or  universe,  pantheism  can  know 


76  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

him  only  as  the  actual  world  of  things  and  men.  As 
Patripassianism  saw  the  whole  Godhead  in  the  suffer- 
ing and  dying  Christ,  a  thought  far  from  repulsive  to 
the  heart  and  the  moral  sense  if  absurd  to  the  rea- 
son and  the  understanding,  so  pantheism  sees  all  of 
God — the  divine  substance  as  well  as  activity  :  rather 
indeed  the  mere  extension  or  evolution  of  his  sub- 
stance without  conscious  or  personal  activity — in  the 
world  of  actuality,  in  all  that  is  false,  ugly  and  evil, 
equally  with  all  that  is  true,  beautiful  and  good. 
In  all  the  thought  of  the  world  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  not  perhaps  the  complete  and  per- 
fect but  the  only  solution  of  these  great  and  other- 
wise insuperable  difficulties. 

It  might  be  felt  that  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
solves  any  intellectual  or  moral  difficulties  it  does  so 
by  introducing  one  quite  as  insoluble  and  incompre- 
hensible in  itself.  Theological  science  is  perhaps  re- 
sponsible for  the  fact  that  that  which  was  introduced 
to  explain  has  become  itself  most  in  need  of  explana- 
tion ;  that  a  doctrine  designed  and  calculated  to  make 
God  most  comprehensible  to  us  has  ended  by  mak- 
ing him  an  incomprehensible  metaphysical  abstraction. 
It  has  come  to  be  popularly  assumed  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  the  abstrusest  of  human  speculations 
which  the  Greek  mind  at  its  subtlest  exhausted  its 
ingenuity  in  devising.  On  the  contrary  if  we  could 
return  to  the  simplicity  and  intelligibility  of  its  orig- 
inal meaning  and  intention  we  should  find  exactly 
the  reverse.  To  begin  with,  the  Trinity  is  primarily 
a  fact  and  not  a  doctrine.  And  it  is  a  fact  which 
alone  brings  God  down  to  our  apprehension  and  into 


The   Truth  of  the   Trinity.  77 

our  experience.  That  God  reveals  himself  to  us  in 
his  personal  divine  Word  and  imparts  himself  to  us 
by  his  personal  divine  Spirit  is  the  basis  of  all  Chris- 
tian knowledge  of  God.  That  we  are  baptized  into  a 
vital  relation  to  him  as  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghostj 
a  threefold  relationship  in  which  he  is  born  in  us  .and 
makes  us  his  children  not  only  by  nature  or  generation 
but  also  by  grace  or  regeneration, — in  which  through 
participation  in  the  Sonship  we  are  brought  into 
realization  and  enjoyment  of  the  Fatherhood  and  fel- 
lowship of  the  Spirit  and  nature  and  life  of  God — this 
was  the  Trinity  as  it  existed  first  in  the  church.  It 
was  not  the  doctrine  but  the  living  and  life-giving 
truth  in  which  they  had  their  whole  spiritual  being 
as  Christians.  It  was  as  we  have  said  the  meaning 
and  reality  of  their  baptism  that — taken  not  by  sign 
merely  but  in  fact  into  the  divine  Sonship  now 
realized  for  all  men  through  the  humanity  of  Jesus 
Christ — they  were  in  relationship  with  the  Father  as 
the  source  and  with  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  grace  and 
power  of  an  actual  new  life  from  heaven.  It  was  the 
meaning  and  reality  of  that  sacrificial  and  sacramental 
feast  in  which  they  perpetually  commemorated  and 
celebrated  their  new  relation  to  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Ghost,  and  converted  the  once-for-all  union  into  a 
living  and  abiding  communion  and  fellowship  of  life 
and  love.  It  was  their  one  confession  of  the  common 
faith  out  of  which,  as  the  simple  baptismal  formula, 
grew  up  those  creeds  in  which  simple  statement  ofl 
fact  became  developed  doctrine  and  definite  dogma. ' 
The  Trinity  was  thus  to  the  primitive  Christians 
simply  the  form  in  which  God  had  come  to  them 


78  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

and  had  taken  them  into  union  and  fellowship  with 
himself.  It  existed  for  them  as  an  objective  reality 
about  which  it  was  long  before  they  began  or  were 
willing  to  reason  or  speculate.  That  Jesus  Christ 
was  God  who  became  one  with  us  and  has  made  us 
one  with  himself  they  received  without  question  and 
without  scientific  thought  of  the  tremendous  mystery 
involved.  That  the  divine  life  of  which  they  were 
conscious  in  him  was  the  personal  life  of  the  personal 
Spirit  of  Christ  and  of  God  who  now  dwelt  in  them 
as  the  body  of  Christ  and  of  his  own  incarnation  in 
humanity  was  a  fact  so  actual  to  experience  that,  as 
with  all  things  that  are  matters  of  fact,  there  was  no 
thought  of  explaining  or  justifying  it  to  the  reason 
or  the  understanding. 

So  long  before  there  was  anything  like  a  rational 
theology  in  the  church  all  Christians  were  simply 
and  unreasoningly  Trinitarian.  It  was  very  easy  for 
them,  if  they  attempted  anything  like  definite  state- 
ment or  formulation  of  their  faith,  to  fall  into  confu- 
sion and  contradiction.  The  few  that  boldly  speculated 
were  apt  either  to  go  astray  or  at  least  to  fall  short 
of  the  whole  truth,  which  only  the  most  comprehen- 
sive catholic  thought  can  embrace  in  all  its  aspects 
and  bearings.  The  church  at  first  was  Trinitarian 
simply  because  the  truth  is  Trinitarian  and  because 
it  accepted  the  truth  as  it  was  objective  to  itself  and 
had  not  yet  converted  it  into  subjective  knowledge. 
That  this  had  to  be  done,  that  there  had  to  be  formed 
a  subjective  consciousness  of  the  church  correspond- 
ing to  the  objective  form  of  the  truth,  is  manifest ;  and 
it  is  equally  manifest  that  that  could  only  be  effected 


Piety  versus  Speculation.  79 

through  manifold  mistakes  and  corrections,  through 
much  high  thought  and  deep  experience,  and  not 
without  strife  and  contention  and  stirring  up  of  other 
interests  and  motives  than  those  to  which  the  gospel 
of  God  ought  alone  to  appeal. 

There  is  abundant  evidence  to  prove  that  the 
Christian  mind  was  slow  and  reluctant  to  make  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  the  matter  of  rational  explana- 
tion and  interpretation.  Having  to  do  with  spiritual 
facts  and  experiences  it  was  in  the  beginning  wholly 
averse  to  speculation.  The  tremendous  speculative 
activity  of  the  second  century  that  went  under  the 
name  of  Christian  gnosis  was  as  we  have  seen  not 
Christian  at  all  but  came  wholly  from  without,  having 
no  real  spiritual  interest  or  religious  experience  in 
Christianity.  But  it  was  directed  upon  the  facts  and 
truths  of  Christianity  and  could  not  but  awake  and 
provoke  Christian  thought  to  meet  and  refute  its  mis- 
representations and  perversions.  None  of  the  earlier 
heresies  that  arose  within  the  church  were  primarily 
speculative ;  Ebionism  was  the  reverse  and  Sabellian- 
ism  accepted  the  incarnation  of  God  literally  without 
appreciating  the  speculative  difficulties  that  neces- 
sitated the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  When  the  abler\ 
and  more  thoughtful  minds  of  the  church  like  Irenaeus, 
Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen  began 
to  be  driven  toward  the  construction  of  a  rational 
and  catholic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  they  had  to  en- 
counter a  mass  of  conservative  piety  to  which  the 
application  of  such  methods  as  pertain  to  natural  and 
secular  knowledge  to  the  truth  of  God  seemed  pro- 
fane and  irreligious.  The  definitions  and  scientific  ' 


8o  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

formulae  forced  at  last  upon  the  church  by  the  Arian 
controversies  were  both  in  and  after  the  Council  of 
Nicaea  resisted  more  by  conservative  obstruction  than 
by  speculative  disagreement.  It  is  characteristic  of 
every  one  of  the  councils  that  imperial  pressure,  in 
the  interest  of  religious  and  civil  peace  and  order,  had 
to  be  exerted  heavily  to  force  the  church  to  define  her- 
self at  all  or  to  add  new  definitions  to  those  already 
made  and  accepted.  That  the  formulation  of  Chris- 
tian knowledge  and  doctrine  did  unquestionably  elicit 
and  employ  an  amount  of  dialectic  skill  and  of  meta- 
physical and  scientific  acumen  and  acuteness  which 
the  world  has  never  seen  equalled  either  for  quan- 
tity or  quality  is  not  to  be  denied.  But  so  far  as  it 
all  was  theological  and  Christological,  in  the  sense  of 
being  religious  and  Christian,  it  was  purely  defensive 
and  compulsory.  So  far  as  it  was  merely  speculative 
and  disputatious  it  was  not  Christian  but  human  and 
Greek.  Even  in  that  age,  at  least  until  politics  and 
heresy  and  controversy  had  perverted  and  corrupted 
the  public  Christian  mind  of  the  East,  Christianity 
preferred  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  to  wisdom 
of  thought  or  speech.  Before  the  First  General 
Council  all  the  decisions  of  the  Christian  conscious- 
ness however  expressed  were  negative  rather  than 
positive — in  condemnation  of  what  was  inconsistent 
with  the  objective  truth  as  it  knew  it  rather  than 
efforts  to  express  its  own  subjective  knowledge  of  the 
truth.  Every  church  had  its  public  confession  of  the 
common  faith  as  a  necessary  part  of  its  religion  and 
worship,  but  infinite  and  even  timid  caution  was  ex- 
ercised to  keep  this  simplest  statement  of  Christian 


Primitive   Thought  of  the   Trinity.      8 1 

fact  true  to  what  it  had  been  in  the  beginning  and 
was  everywhere  and  among  all. 

If  now  we  should  venture  to  express  the  primitive 
and  objective  fact  of  the  Trinity  as  it  existed  prior  to 
the  formulation  of  the  doctrine  or  to  the  compulsory 
and  necessary  awaking  and  activity  of  the  theologiz- 
ing mind  of  the  church,  we  might  express  it  or  ex- 
plain it  somewhat  as  follows.  To  the  religious  mind 
of  the  church  there  were  three  great  facts  or  processes 
in  which  and  in  which  alone  it  knew  or  could  know 
God :  first,  in  the  natural  creation  and  preservation  of 
all  things ;  second,  in  the  incarnation  and  atonement 
or  the  spiritual  and  moral  new  creation  of  humanity  in 
Jesus  Christ ;  and  third,  in  the  presence  and  operation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  powers  of  the  world  to 
come  in  the  church  and  the  souls  of  believers. 

With  regard  to  the  natural  creation  we  have  seen 
how  instinctively  Christianity  preserved  a  straight 
course  between  a  deistic  separation  of  God  on  the  one 
hand  and  a  pantheistic  identification  and  confusion  of 
God  with  it  on  the  other.  Just  as  soon  as  in  St.  Paul 
or  St.  John  or  wherever  else  in  the  Scriptures  or  in 
catholic  thought  the  higher  or  preincarnate  aspect 
of  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  is  dwelt  upon,  he  is  im- 
mediately brought  into  relation  with  (i)  the  natural 
creation  or  origin  of  all  things  and  (2)  the  end  or 
consummation  of  all  things.  It  is  he  through  whom 
all  things  are  and  it  is  he  in  whom  all  things  are  to 
come  to  their  natural  and  predestined  end  and  com- 
pletion. Who  then  is  he  or  what,  whom  the  church 
from  the  beginning  has  seen  with  the  eyes  not  of 
sense  but  of  faith  under  the  human  form  of  Jesus 


82  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

Christ?  We  will  endeavor  to  answer  this  question 
somewhat  in  the  order  of  thought  or  conception  in 
which  the  truth  may  be  supposed  to  have  originated 
and  been  developed  in  the  mind  of  the  church. 

Perhaps  the  very  first  impression  calculated  to  be 
produced  by  even  the  most  natural  and  human  study 
of  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  is  that  of  the  universal- 
ity of  his  humanity.  He  is  man  to  every  man,  the 
manhood  of  every  man  in  the  world.  There  is  no 
human  being  from  highest  to  lowest  who  may  not 
see  in  him  the  meaning,  the  truth,  the  divine  idea  and 
purpose,  the  true  conception  and  end  of  himself.  It 
is  not  merely  that  he  bears  the  common  nature  and 
has  lived  the  common  life  and  shared  the  common 
experiences  of  every  man.  He  is  infinitely  nearer 
than  that;  he  is  the  true  human  personality  and  the 
innermost  human  self  of  every  man.  Every  human 
being  knows  himself  and  becomes  himself  only  in 
Jesus  Christ.  There  are  many  individual  human  rea- 
sons but  every  human  reason  finds  and  fulfils  itself 
only  in  union  and  unity  with  the  one  universal  rea- 
son. There  are  many  human  wills  but  each  one  of 
them  finds  its  freedom  and  attainment  only  in  the 
one  perfect  will.  There  are  many  men,  there  is  only 
one  manhood ;  and  he  who  does  not  find  that  in  the 
divine-human  love  and  self-sacrifice  and  holiness  and 
life  of  Jesus  Christ  will  not  find  it  at  all.  So  Jesus 
Christ  is  God's  truth  and  word  to  every  man  of  him- 
self— not  only  of  God's  self,  but  of  every  man's  self. 
For  the  true,  better,  higher,  eternal,  divine  self  of 
every  man,  that  selfhood  which  it  is  the  infinite  and 
eternal  aim  of  every  man  to  realize  and  attain,  is  God. 


Primitive  Thought  of  the  Logos.        83 

It  is  in  this  sense  that  Jesus  Christ  may  be  said  to 
be  the  Logos,  first  of  all,  of  man.  He  is  man  as  the 
personal  Godhead  is  personally  realized  in  him — rea- 
son of  his  reason,  will  of  his  will,  the  very  self  of  his 
selfhood  or  personality ;  and  yet  so  that  human  free- 
dom and  personality  are  not  lost  but  found  and  ful- 
filled in  that  of  God.  It  is  an  insufficient  account  of 
the  incarnation  to  say  that  God  assumed  our  nature. 
He  became  ourselves,  and  first  in  that  universal  hu- 
man selfhood  or  personality  of  Jesus  Christ  who  is 
the  inner  and  new  personal  manhood  of  every  man 
who  finds  him  and  finds  himself  in  him.  Nothing 
less  but  a  great  deal  more  than  all  this  is  necessarily 
contained  in  that  instinctive  and  primitive  Christian 
consciousness  which  led  men  to  seek  and  find  them- 
selves "  in  Jesus  Christ,"  not  as  instead  of  themselves 
but  as  their  true  and  real  self,  in  whom  they  were  re- 
deemed and  fulfilled. 

More  than  all  this,  the  first  mind  of  the  church  saw 
in  Jesus  Christ  the  divine  Logos  not  only  of  human- 
ity but  of  the  whole  creation  also.  Through  him 
and  for  him  were  all  things  made;  he  is  both  first 
and  final  cause  of  the  whole  creation  as  a  unit.  The 
natural  and  what  is,  at  least  misleadingly,  called  the 
supernatural  world  or  order  are  not  two  but  one. 
One  Logos,  that  is  to  say  one  divine  thought  and 
purpose,  one  law,  one  creative  or  self-fulfilling  pro- 
cess runs  through  all.  The  natural  creation,  what 
we  might  call  universal  evolution,  comes  first  to  its 
meaning  and  truth  in  rational  and  spiritual  humanity ; 
the  rational  and  spiritual  in  man  will  find  and  com- 
plete itself  in  the  divine  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ. 


84  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

The  one  only  Logos  of  God,  first  in  nature  and  then 
in  grace,  first  in  natural  and  then  in  spiritual  crea- 
tion, fulfils  himself  through  all  and  in  all.  The  Christ 
of  the  future  is  the  goal  and  crown  of  the  entire 
creation  of  God.  Then  and  there,  where  Creator  and 
creature  shall  be  one,  God  shall  be  all  and  in  all.  He 
will  have  fulfilled  himself  in  all  things  and  all  things 
in  himself. 

Thus  the  primitive  and  genuine  Christian  mind 
does  not  set  itself  against  or  above  nature  and  the 
natural.  The  so-called  supernatural  means  only  the 
higher  natural  to  which  the  natural  is  predestined  to 
come.  The  time  will  be  when  the  science  of  nature 
will  complete  itself  in  the  science  of  that  supernature 
which  is  only  not  yet  nature  because  as  yet  we  fore- 
know it  only  by  faith  and  know  it  not  by  sight. 
When  we  know  it  by  sight  it  will  be  seen  to  be 
natural  and  our  knowledge  of  it  will  become  science. 
He  then  who  as  incarnate  is  in  the  church  and  in 
each  regenerate  soul  as  the  inner  and  divine  self  it  is 
predestined  to  become,  is  he  also  who  is  in  every 
human  reason  and  conscience  and  who  is  in  irrational 
and  inanimate  nature  as  its  ideal  principle  and  law. 
That  there  is  an  ideal  principle — a  principle  of  intel- 
ligence, will  and  purpose,  of  love  and  goodness — 
in  all  nature  and  natural  evolution  may  not  be  de- 
monstrable from  nature  itself  and  may  have  much  in 
nature  apparently  to  contradict  it.  Yet  the  deepest 
natures  feel  it,  the  highest  intelligences  see  it,  and  the 
sinful  and  suffering  human  heart  believes  it  in  spite 
of  its  sin  and  suffering.  To  the  Christian  reason, 
conscience,  experience,  which  sees  the  profoundest 


Nature  and  the  Supernatural.          85 

exhibition  of  the  love  of  the  divine  Father  in  the 
very  cross  and  agony  of  the  infinitely  and  divinely  be- 
loved Son,  there  is  no  longer  a  mystery  of  evil.  It 
is  the  cross  that  raiseth  us ;  the  pain  of  the  world  is 
the  lever  by  which  God  lifts  us  to  himself.  The  cross 
that  exalted  Jesus  the  Son  of  God  to  the  right  hand 
of  the  Father  is  the  Christian  assurance  that  God  and 
love  are  at  the  heart  of  all  natural  so-called  evil ;  that 
there  is  no  evil  but  sin,  whose  essence  is  ignorance 
and  unbelief  of  God  and  love. 

Here  occurs  a  point  that  may  illustrate  if  not  ex- 
plain in  advance  much  of  what  is  to  come.  If  there  is 
such  an  ideal  principle  in  nature  as  we  are  speaking 
of  it  is  there  in  and  as  nature  and  not  outside  of  and 
beside  it.  It  is  an  ultimately  true  principle  that  there 
are  no  miracles  in  nature.  If  nature  is  God's  work, 
God  does  not  work  outside  of  it;  he  works  in  and 
not  upon  it.  If  there  is  a  LTogos  of  natural  evolution 
or  creation  it  may  be  God's,  it  may  be  God ;  but  it  is 
also  nature's  and  nature.  The  two  must  be  one  and 
not  two.  Faith  may  see  it  as  God,  science  can  and 
must  see  it  only  as  nature.  God  is  and  acts  in  noth- 
ing whatever  otherwise  than  in  the  being  and  acting 
of  the  thing  itself.  Faith  is  of  him ;  science  is  only 
of  the  thing.  There  is  the  same  unity,  continuity  and 
connection  in  things  that  there  is  in  God  and  science 
must  as  much  recognize  it  under  the  form  of  natural 
necessity  and  the  universal  reign  of  law  as  it  is  neces- 
sary to  believe  its  existence  in  the  divine  nature. 

So  if  we  are  to  think  of  a  Logos  or  divine  personal 
principle  of  spiritual  and  moral  creation,  of  human  re- 
demption and  completion,  if  we  are  to  think  of  God 


86  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

as  incarnate  in  humanity,  we  must  think  not  only  of 
him  as  incarnating  himself  in  humanity  but  also  of  him 
as  incarnating  himself  in  humanity.  He  must  not 
be  beside  or  instead  of  it  or  act  upon  it  from  with- 
out ;  he  must  be  in  it  and  must  be  it  and  his  acting 
in  it  must  be  its  own  acting.  When  God  shall  have 
incarnated  himself  in  a  redeemed  and  completed  hu- 
manity it  must  equally  be  a  humanity  that  has  in- 
carnated in  itself  the  living  God.  It  will  be  God  who 
has  so  fulfilled  himself  in  man ;  but  he  will  not  have 
done  so  unless  it  is  also  man  who  has  so  realized  him- 
self in  God.  It  will  be  both  and  yet  both  will  be  not 
two  but  one. 

The  case  becomes  more  difficult  but  it  also  becomes 
more  practically  important,  because  on  account  of  its 
difficulty  it  is  more  liable  to  misconception  and  mis- 
representation, when  we  come  to  study  the  personal 
incarnation  of  God  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  The 
point  is  that  while  we  see  in  him  a  divine  person  we 
must  see  him  only  in  and  as  a  human  person.  The 
whole  incarnation  of  the  divine  Son  of  God  is  a  divine 
act,  an  act  of  God.  But  if  it  is  an  incarnation  and  if 
it  is  to  redeem  and  exalt  humanity  it  must  be  an  act 
in  and  as  man  and  not  beside,  through  or  instead  of 
or  in  a  mere  form  or  semblance  of  manhood.  It  is 
an  act  of  God  but  it  must  be  equally  an  act  of  man 
or  else  man  is  in  no  way  redeemed  and  completed  in 
it.  The  difference  and  difficulty  in  this  case  is  that 
whereas  in  nature  we  see  the  Logos  of  the  universe 
operating  in  and  only  in  laws  or  a  law  which  is  the 
law  of  nature,  and  in  what  we  might  call  the  generic 
incarnation  or  the  incarnation  in  humanity  we  see  the 


Absoluteness  of  Our  Lord's  Humanity.  87 

Logos  of  humanity  manifesting  himself  in  and  only 
in  the  actual  redemption  and  completion  of  human- 
ity, when  we  come  to  the  particular  incarnation  in 
Jesus  Christ  the  one  person  of  our  Lord  is  both  the 
Logos  who  incarnates  himself  in  a  human  person  and 
the  human  person  in  whom  he  is  incarnate.  It  is  per- 
fectly true  to  say  that  our  Lord  assumed  an  imper- 
sonal human  nature  but  it  is  not  true  to  say  that  he 
was  impersonal  in  that  nature  or  that  as  man  he  was 
not  a  human  person  and  had  not  all  the  characteris- 
tics and  limitations  of  a  human  personality.  If  he 
had  not  he  was  not  a  man  and  lived  no  true  human 
life  and  is  for  us  no  real  human  righteousness  and 
life.  We  hope  to  realize  more  and  more  as  we  pro- 
ceed that  it  was  the  eternal  divine  nature  and  pre- 
destination of  the  Logos  through  nature  and  through 
grace  to  become  man — to  become  as  we  have  said 
before  not  only  alike  in  nature  but  one  in  person 
with  every  man.  St.  Paul  was  not  content  to  say, 
"Christ  was  a  man  like  me;"  he  says,  "Not  I  but 
Christ:  /live  no  longer;  Christ  lives  in  me."  It  is 
the  personal  human  Christ  who,  because  he  is  the 
eternal  divine  selfhood  of  us,  comes  to  himself  in  us 
and  brings  us  to  ourselves  in  him.  But  if  the  human 
Christ  is  divine,  the  divine  Christ  in  himself,  in  his 
incarnate  person  or  personality  and  not  merely  in  his 
nature  or  purely  natural  attributes,  is  human.  He  is 
man,  the  man,  the  infinitely  human,  infinitely  divine 
personal  manhood  of  every  man ;  the  man  in  whom 
every  man  finds  and  becomes  himself.  And  in  order 
to  be  this  we  must  believe  that  he  became  man  in 
accordance  with  all  the  laws  and  attributes  of  a  real 


88  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

manhood,  through  a  real  human  birth,  infancy  and 
ignorance,  growth  in  knowledge,  will  and  character, 
faith  and  obedience,  holiness,  righteousness  and  life. 
It  was  the  becoming  human  of  the  Logos  in  the  flesh 
of  sin  and  death  and  the  human  conquest  and  con- 
demnation in  it  of  sin  and  death ;  in  other  words  it 
was  the  triumphant  holiness  and  life  of  the  man  Christ 
Jesus — a  holiness  that  abolished  sin  and  a  life  that 
destroyed  death — which  constitutes  him  the  new  man 
in  whom  objectively  all  men  have  been  made  new  and 
who  in  all  men  subjectively  makes  them  new. 

Thus  in  Jesus  Christ  the  church  from  the  very  first 
recognized  the  divine  personal  principle  both  of  nature 
and  of  grace,  the  meaning,  end  and  purpose  of  the 
whole  creation.  He  is  the  eternal  mind,  will  and  ac- 
tivity of  God  revealed  in  all  things,  everywhere  one 
and  the  same.  He  is  the  truth  of  the  atom,  of  motion, 
law,  life,  of  the  soul,  of  human  and  divine  reason,  the 
world,  man,  God.  If  he  is  God  he  is  also  man  and 
nature ;  he  is  the  unity  of  God  with  nature  and  man. 

Therefore  while  the  church  identified  the  Logos, 
incarnate  and  preincarnate,  with  God,  for  reasons 
already  given  it  also  distinguished  him  from  the  God- 
head as  a  whole.  The  Logos  is  Geo^  but  not  <5  0e6f ; 
he  is  the  personal  intelligence,  will  and  energy  of  God 
and  is  really  or  essentially  God ;  but  he  is  not  so  God 
as  that  the  whole  Godhead  is  expressed  in  nature  or 
incarnate  in  Christ  and  humanity.  So  again  when  the 
church  was  conscious  within  itself  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
as  the  Spirit  and  presence  of  Christ  and  of  God,  it 
was  compelled  to  distinguish  him  from  them  even 
while  it  identified  him  with  them.  There  was  prac- 


Christian  Pantheism.  89 

tically,  with  inconsiderable  exceptions  that  will  be 
mentioned,  no  denial  of  his  divinity ;  there  was,  with 
perhaps  greater  exceptions,  no  considerable  denial  of 
his  personality.  The  true  Christian  consciousness 
knows  no  operation,  influence  or  presence  of  God  that 
is  not  God  himself ;  whatever  is  divine  is  personal,  is 
God.  To  it  nature  is  God,  events  are  God,  every- 
thing is  God  save  those  finite  spirits  to  whom  in  the 
free  will  God  has  given  the  power  to  be  other  than 
himself  and  even  contrary  to  himself.  So  grace  is 
God,  not  an  impersonal,  dead  influence  separate  and 
apart  from  him,  but  he  himself  become  human  and 
so  capable  of  becoming  as  man  to  every  man.  The 
personal  Word  by  the  personal  Holy  Ghost  is  in  every 
one  who  is  living  in  him  and  is  in  them  redemption 
from  sin  and  life  from  death.  So  in  himself,  in  Jesus 
Christ,  and  in  itself  the  church  knew  God  as  Father, 
as  Son  and  as  Holy  Ghost,  and  was  Trinitarian  in 
fact  before  it  became  so  in  thought  and  doctrine. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   ORIGIN  AND   RISE   OF  ARIANISM. 

[HERE  is  probably  no  heresy  that  had 
not  something  of  serious  motive  in  its 
origin  and  that  did  not  aim  to  defend 
or  preserve  some  element  of  truth  and 
value.  We  might  be  more  disposed  to 
question  this  of  Arianism  than  of  any  other  form  of 
early  Christian  error.  It  seems  to  us  now  at  least  to 
have  so  little  basis  of  philosophical  probability  or  pos- 
sibility, its  spirit  at  the  time  was  so  merely  logical 
and  controversial  and  so  little  religious,  it  was  so 
ready  and  quick  to  avail  itself  of  political  and  secular 
methods  and  instrumentalities  and  its  general  temper 
and  character  as  shown  in  its  most  conspicuous  leaders 
and  representatives  were  so  unchristian  that  we  are 
tempted  to  see  in  it  neither  seriousness  of  motive  nor 
interest  for  truth.  So  far  as  it  had  a  religious  interest  it 
must  be  found  in  its  theology,  not  in  its  Christology. 
An  incarnation  of  what  is  not  God  in  what  is  not  man 
has  nothing  in  it  of  the  reality  and  truth  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith  or  fact  of  the  divine  incarnation  and  can 
carry  in  it  nothing  of  the  Christian  experience  of 
atonement  with  God,  redemption  from  sin  and  res- 
urrection from  death.  On  the  one  hand  Arianism 

90 


Theological  Motive  of  Arianism.       91 

pushes  the  distinction  between  the  incarnate  Son  and 
the  eternal  Father  to  the  point  of  denying  the  essen- 
tial divinity  of  the  former,  and  on  the  other  hand 
the  lower,  created  and  not  truly  divine  person  who 
according  to  it  became  incarnate  assumed  only  a 
human  form,  body  and  animal  soul,  but  none  at  all 
of  the  higher  functions  and  parts  of  a  real  humanity. 

Its  religious  interest  therefore  must  be  found  in 
its  theology  and  most  probably  in  that  truth  of  the 
divine  being  and  nature  that  we  have  alluded  to 
as  the  monarchia,  the  unity  of  God  as  the  principle 
(dp\;T?)  of  the  universe.  Sabellianism  and  Arianism 
illustrate  the  opposite  directions  in  which  one  and  the 
same  theological  interest  may  seek  to  maintain  itself. 
The  motive  of  both  is  Monarchian,  but  while  Sabel- 
lianism defends  the  unity  of  the  divine  principle  by 
denying  any  real  distinction  in  it  and  makes  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost  one  in  person  as  well  as  na- 
ture, Arianism  attains  the  same  end  by  widening 
the  distinction  of  persons  into  one  of  nature  and  so 
attributing  real  divinity  and  original  causation  only 
to  the  Father.  The  genealogy  therefore  of  Arianism 
is  to  be  sought  in  the  history  of  that  Ebionite  Mon- 
archianism  which  we  saw  to  be  Jewish  in  its  origin. 
We  have  seen  also  how  after  the  teaching  of  Theo- 
dotus  and  Artemon  it  appeared  in  its  most  conspic- 
uous form  in  that  of  Paulof  Samosata,  metropolitan  of 
Antioch,  to  whom,  through  Lucian  and  the  Lucianists, 
Bishop  Alexander  attributed  the  origin  of  the  heresy 
that  broke  out  under  him  in  Alexandria  about  the 
year  318  in  the  person  and  teaching  of  the  presbyter 
Arius. 


92  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

Such  was  the  direct  descent  and  origin  of  Arian- 
ism ;  yet  there  is  no  doubt  that  from  without  it  was 
developed  mainly  through  antagonism  to  its  opposite, 
Sabellianism.  As  against  this  latter  many  of  the 
church  fathers  were  driven  to  insist  in  very  strong 
terms  upon  the  distinction  of  the  persons  in  the  divine 
Trinity, — so  much  so  that  the  distinction  was  some- 
times expressed  in  language  which  if  taken  literally 
would  seriously  compromise  if  not  destroy  the  iden- 
tity of  nature.  If  words  used  by  them  be  interpreted 
in  the  sense  and  with  the  technical  exactness  which 
they  acquired  through  the  long  discussions  that 
followed,  Origen  himself,  the  ablest  of  catholic  an- 
tagonists of  the  principle  of  Sabellianism,  and  sev- 
eral of  his  greatest  followers — as  Gregory  of  Neo- 
Caesarea  and  Dionysius  of  Alexandria — might  be 
justly  charged  with  this.  Athanasius  and  the  later 
church  fathers  recognized  the  fact  that  such  errors 
of  expression  arose  from  personal  inaccuracy  and 
natural  ambiguity  of  language  and  not  from  unsound- 
ness  of  faith,  but  nevertheless  the  expressions  were 
seized  upon  and  pressed  into  the  service  of  errors  that 
in  part  had  grown  out  of  them  and  one  or  more  of 
the  writers  themselves  were  thus  made  actually  re- 
sponsible for  the  heresy  of  Arianism — with  which 
they  would  have  had  in  fact  not  the  least  sympa- 
thy. Thus  Origen,  one  of  the  earliest  as  well  as 
ablest  contributors  to  the  development  of  the  doctrine 
that  was  formulated  afterward  in  the  term  "homoou- 
sion,"  identity  in  nature  or  essential  divinity  of  the 
Father  and  Son,  used  language  in  emphasizing  the  dis- 
tinction between  Father  and  Son  against  the  then 


Need  of  an  Exact   Terminology.        93 

emerging  principle  of  Sabellianism  which  as  terms 
were  afterward  defined  would  imply  not  the  difference 
of  personality  that  he  meant  but  difference  of  essence 
or  substance — which  was  just  what  he  did  not  mean. 
And  in  teaching  what  was  on  the  whole  a  catholic 
sense  of  the  natural  subordination  of  the  Son  to  the 
Father,  beside  other  ambiguous  expressions  he  termed 
the  eternal  Son  devrepbg  Qebg,  a  term  that  the  Arians 
adopted  and  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  Son,  while 
he  may  be  called  God,  is  so  only  in  a  secondary  and 
lower  sense  than  the  Father  and  so  really  and  es- 
sentially is  not  God  at  all.  Similarly  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  intent  only  upon  a  refutation  of  Sabel- 
lianism and  careless  of  error  in  the  opposite  direction 
— for  Arianism  was  as  yet  unborn,  though  of  it  his  own 
inaccurate  expression  was  after  said  to  be  the  seed, — 
used  language  that  implied  that  the  Son  was  not 
"born,"  as  he  meant,  but  "made "of  the  Father,  which 
he  did  not  mean,  and  which  was  developed  into  the 
Arian  teaching  that  the  Son  of  God  is  a  created  being. 
Other  church  fathers  are  quoted  not  sparingly  as  using 
in  one  generation  and  from  one  point  of  view  terms 
and  expressions  which  in  a  succeeding  generation  and 
from  other  points  of  view  are  discarded  or  condemned 
as  heretical.  We  must  remember  the  natural  ambigu- 
ity of  human  language  and  how  unexpressed  and  in- 
expressible the  church  had  held  those  spiritual  things 
to  be  that  were  the  matter  of  its  faith  rather  than  its 
knowledge.  As  it  became  necessary  more  and  more 
to  define  the  faith  so  as  to  purge  it  of  its  perversions, 
it  had  only  a  language  which,  although  the  most  per- 
fect in  the  world,  was  undeveloped  in  the  direction  of 


94  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

the  new  world  of  ideas  and  truths  that  Christianity 
had  opened.  A  phraseology  had  to  be  adapted  if 
not  created  and  then,  what  was  more  difficult, 
adopted  by  common  consent  in  an  agreed  sense.  In 
order  to  do  this  the  church  had  to  select  the  best  or 
most  available  words,  to  separate  them  from  all  vague 
and  shifting  popular  senses  and  uses  and  stamp  upon 
them  a  technical  and  perhaps  arbitrary  limitation  and 
exactness  which  they  were  very  far  from  possessing 
of  themselves ;  and  then  it  had  to  bring  itself  to  a 
universal  consent  and  agreement  to  use  them  only 
in  that  sense  or  at  least  to  understand  them  in  that 
sense  when  used  in  definition  of  the  faith.  Thus  the 
two  crucial  and  vital  terms  finally  adopted  in  definition 
of  the  Trinity — the  term  "  ousia"  meaning  the  essence 
or  "substance"  of  the  divine  nature  in  which  lies 
the  unity,  and  the  term  "  hyrjostasis  "  expressing  the 
personal  distinction  that  constitutes  the  Trinity  in 
the  Godhead — might  have  been  used  and  were  ac- 
tually sometimes  used  before  the  Nicene  Council 
succeeded  in  fixing  their  meaning  in  senses  just  the 
reverse  of  those  adopted;  that  is  "  ousia  "  was  used 
for  personality  and  not  essence  or  substance,  and 
"  hypostasis  "  was  used  for  essence  or  substance  and  not 
personality.  And  it  is  easily  enough  explained  how 
this  ambiguity  belonged  to  them  in  themselves.  The 
church  indeed  was  intent  on  things,  not  words;  it 
reluctantly  reduced  the  things  of  the  Spirit  to  words 
at  all  and  if  it  was  compelled  to  devote  an  infinitely 
minute  and  subtle  attention  to  the  adaptation  and 
definition  of  words  it  was  because  it  had  new  and 
high  and  infinitely  important  things  to  express  and 


Outbreak  of  the  Heresy.  95 

had  to  create,  although  out  of  existing  materials,  a 
language  in  which  truly  and  adequately  to  express 
them. 

We  can  readily  understand  thus  how  while 
Athanasius  and  the  Nicene  church  fathers  saw  the 
truth  in  what  was  meant  by  the  church  teaching  be- 
fore them,  the  Arians  could  also  see  in  much  that 
had  been  said  in  that  same  teaching  the  suggestion 
and  substance  of  their  own  heresy. 

In  this  way  catholic  antagonism  and  Sabellianism 
with  its  opposite  tendencies  to  Patripassianism  and 
Docetism  had  unwittingly  habituated  many  minds 
within  the  church  to  such  wide  distinctions  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son  as  gradually  to  prepare  not 
only  the  thought  but  also  the  very  language  that  at 
last  found  heretical  expression  in  Arius.  The  circum- 
stances of  the  outbreak  of  the  heresy  are  too  familiar  to 
require  narration  in  detail.  The  issue  arose  between 
Arius,  a  leading  and  influential  presbyter,  and  his 
bishop  Alexander.  It  secured  through  the  popular 
qualities  and  methods  of  its  founder  a  following  among 
the  common  people  of  Alexandria.  But  its  intellec- 
tual and  theological  extension  was  not  there  but  in  the 
patriarchate  of  Antioch  whence  its  seeds  had  been 
brought  and  where  it  found  a  more  natural  and  con- 
genial home. 

A  proof  that  the  real  interest  and  motive  of  Arian- 
ism  is  not  Christological  but  theological,  that  it  was 
a  question  not  of  the  value  and  significance  of  the 
person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ  but  of  the  nature 
of  God,  and  that  its  essence  is  to  be  found  in  a 
deistic  conception  of  God  which  separates  him  most 


g6  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

widely  from  both  nature  and  human  nature,  from  the 
world  and  humanity,  is  to  be  found  in  Arius's  own 
earliest  representation  of  his  contention  with  his 
bishop.  He  addressed  to  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia, 
who  was  soon  to  become  the  real  intellectual  head 
and  controlling  spirit  of  the  movement,  the  following 
complaint :  "  The  bishop  fiercely  assaults  and  drives  us, 
leaving  no  means  untried  in  his  opposition.  At  length 
he  has  driven  us  out. of  the  city  as  ungodly  for  dis- 
senting from  his  public  declarations  that  '  as  God  is 
eternal,  so  is  his  Son;  where  the  Father  is,  there  is 
the  Son ;  the  Son  coexists  in  God  without  a  begin- 
ning ;  ever  generate  or  born,  or  born  without  begin- 
ning ;  that  neither  in  idea  nor  by  an  instant  of  time 
does  God  precede  the  Son ;  an  eternal  God,  an  eter- 
nal Son;  the  Son  is  from  God  himself.'  .  .  .  These 
blasphemies  we  cannot  bear  even  to  hear;  no,  not 
though  the  heretics  should  threaten  us  with  ten  thou- 
sand deaths." 

We  must  remember  that  with  Arius  as  with  the 
church  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Logos  of  natural  as 
well  as  spiritual  creation  through  the  incarnation. 
He  was  as  far  fromoelieving  that  God  immediately 
created  or  is  connected  with  the  natural  world  as  that 
he  is  incarnate  in  Jesus  Christ.  The  point  of  his  whole 
position  was  that  God  is  too  exalted  §njj^ranscendent 
1  to  be  related  to  the  universe  except  through  an  in- 
i  termediary.  He  who  came  so  near  as  to  mingle 
himself  with  the  world  or  who  so  humbled  himself 
as  to  become  incarnate  in  man  could  not  be  the  most 
high  God  himself.  The  very  thought  is  such  blas- 
phemy that  to  bear  even  to  hear  it  is  worse  than  ten 


Tenets  of  Arianism.  97 

thousand  deaths.  Consequently  the  Creator  of  the 
worlds,  he  who  became  incarnate  in  the  life  of  hu- 
manity, was  not  6edf,  as"  St.  John  says,  or  only  so 
in  a  secondary  and  applied  sense,  devrepbg  Qeog.  He 
was  a  being  between  God  and  the  world  of  nature! 
and  grace,  immeasurably  higher  than  it  but  infinitely! 
lower  than  he.  He  was  born  of  God,  indeed  the 
only-born  or  begotten  and  so  alone  in  the  highest 
sense  Son  of  God,  and  through  him  God  created  the 
world  and  redeemed  and  completed  humanity  by 
making  him  man.  But  he  was  only-begotten  in  the  v 
sense  that  he  alone  came  immediately  from  GodVown 
hand  whereas  all  things  else  came  from  God  through  , 
him.  He  was  not  begotten  or  born  or  Son  of  God 
in  the  real  sense  that  makes  him  in  the  mind  of  the 
church  God  of  or  out  of  God  and  so  of  the  very 
essence  or  "substance"  of  the  Father,  but  only  in 
the  figurative  sense  in  which  everything  that  comes 
from  him  may  be  said  to  be  born  of  him  although 
infinitely  and  essentially  different  in  nature.  In  other 
words  he  was  not  born  or  Son  of  God  at  all  but  pro- 
duced by  a  creative  act  "  out  of  nothing,"  not  as 
the  church  believed  by  necessary  and  eternal  gener- 
ation from  himself.  The  Logos  was  thus  a  crea- . 

, — «--° 

ture,  created  indeed  before  all  others  and  even  before 
ffme  itself,  for  time  is  one  of  the  creatures,  but  only 
differing  from  them  in  that,  as  has  been  said,  he 
came  alone  from  the  hand  of  God  himself  and  wasj 
the  instrument  of  their  creation.  The  Arians  indeed 
turned  the  very  fact  of  his  Sonship  or  birth  of 
the  Father,  which  to  the  church  meant  that  he  was 
God  of  God,  into  an  argument  against  his  deity.  It 


98  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

contradicted  they  said  the  two  very  first  predicates 
of  the  divine,  which  are  that  it  is  underived  andjstejinal. 
"  That  which  was  born,  was  not  before  it  was  born ;" 
we  must  therefore  be  able  to  say  even  of  the  only- 
begotten  of  God  that  qv  TTOTE  ore  dvic  qv ;  "  there  was  " 
— not  a  time,  for  even  time  was  not  then — but  "  there 
once  was  when  he  was  not."  And  as  the  Arian  Logos 
•  possessed  not  the  two  first  so  he  possessed  not  any 
of  the  real  attributes  of  Godhead.  He  was  not  om- 
nipotent, omniscient,  or  anything  else  that  God  alone 
infinitely  is. 

The  Nicene  Council  charged  against  Arius  beside 
the  above  another  heretical  tenet  from  which  in  the 
controversy  he  thought  it  at  least  wise  to  recede. 
This  was  the  position  that  the  Logos  in  himself  and 
not  merely  as  man,  beside  being  not  eternal  and  not 
of  the  divine  essence  or  nature  but  created  "  out  of 
nothing,"  was  not  drpeTr-og  or  dvaAAwcj-of ;  that  is, 
was  not  incapable  of  change  or  of  falling,  as  Satan 
one  of  the  highest  of  created  beings  had  done.  He 
himself  was  under_probation  and  by  his  triumphant 
virtue  and  righteousness  on  earth  restored  and  estab- 
lished the  world  of  men.  His  Sonship  was  not  one 
jof  nature  or  essence  but  of  freedom  and  choice,  a 
( personal  and  moral,  not  proper  or  essential  one.  It 
was  quite  a  secondary  and  subsidiary  part  but  it 
was  a  real  part  of  Arianism  that  this  secondary  God 
who  was  not  God,  this  divine  Son  of  God  who  was 
neither  Son  of  God  nor  divine,  became  incarnate  in 
a  humanity  which  was  not  humanity.  The_  bodily 
or  material  part  jwas^alone  human;  the  rational  and 
spiritual,  whTclT  is  alone  essential  and  real  manhood, 


Denies  both  Godhead  and  Manhood.     99 

was  in  this  man  not  that  of  the  humanity  but  of  the. 
higher  incarnate  person.  So  that  the  earthly  life  ana 
experiences,  sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus  were  ncf 
more  those  of  man  than  they  were  of  God.  They 
were  those  of  a  demi-god,  demi-man,  who  was 
neither  God  nor  marTahd  who  from  the  Christian 
point  of~view~  wasTieither  able  to  save  nor  needing 
to  be  saved.  It  is  clear  that  apart  from  a  merely 
theoretical  or  theological  zeal  for  the  transcendence 
of  a  God  who  can  neither  touch  nor  be  touched  by 
anything  outside  of  himself  Arianism  itself  could  have 
had  no  real  interest  at  all  in  such  an  incarnation.  In 
fact  all  in  it  beyond  the  barest  monotheistic  deism 
on  the  one  hand  and  the  barest  Ebionitic  humanita- 
rianism  on  the  other, — that  is,  all  that  the  grand  and 
complicated  system  of  Arianism  proper  had  to  add 
to  a  simple  humanitarian  Ebionism, — was  nothing  but 
a  compulsory  concession  to  the  irresistible  Christian 
demand  for  a  human  incarnation  of  God  and  a  divine 
redemption  and  completion  of  man  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ.  In  response  to  this  Arianism  pretended 
to  give  both  and  gave  neither.  In  all  the  tremendous 
discussion  there  was  nothing  on  the  Arian  side  either 
said  or  thought  of  the  spiritual  or  religious  needs  of 
man  or  of  the  self -imparting  love  and  grace  of  God, 
nothing  realized  of  that  profound  necessity  which  is 
the  meaning  and  truth  of  all  religion,  that  infinite 
love  must  fill  and  fulfil  all  things  with  and  in  itself ; 
but  everything  of  a  God  whose  very  nature  it  is  to 
hold  himself  eternally  aloof  from  all  things  else,  a 
God  whom  in  his  isolation  and  selfish  transcendence 
it  is  as  absurd  for  one  like  Arius  to  so  concern  himself 


ioo  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

about  as  to  prefer  ten  thousand  deaths  rather  than 
hear  of  his  soiling  himself  by  contact  with  us,  as  it 
is  absurd  to  think  of  his  condescending  to  concern 
himself  about  so  doing. 

The  true  value  of  Arianism  was  negative ;  it  acted 
as  a  foil  for  the  truth  in  that  bringing  out  in  itself 
all  that  Christianity  is  not  it  forced  the  church  to 
bring  into  consciousness  and  expression  all  that  it 
is.  And  this  was  only  to  be  accomplished  by  real- 
izing as  fully  the  real  and  perfect  deity  on  the  one 
side  as  on  the  other  side  the  real  and  complete  hu- 
manity of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God — both  of  which 
Arianism  denied.  With  the  first  of  these  denials  the 
church  for  a  long  time  was  exclusively  concerned; 
the  second  remained  in  the  background,  and  was 
scarcely  recognized  as  a  part  of  Arianism.  But  we 
shall  see  that  just  as  soon  as  the  first  was  thoroughly 
disposed  of  and  settled  in  the  first  two  general  councils, 
the  second  came  forward  to  be  met  and  dealt  with  at 
even  greater  length  and  with  more  trouble  in  all  the 
subsequent  general  councils. 

If  we  turn  for  a  moment  from  the  negative  to  the 
positive,  from  the  Arian  to  the  catholic  side  of  the 
speculations,  so  far  as  they  have  gone,  upon  the  rela- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ  to  God,  it  is  well  known  that 
that  relation  was  expressed  in  two  designations,  the 
Word  or  Logos  and  the  Son  of  God.  Each  of  these 
titles  had  in  controversy  an  advantage  and  a  disad- 
vantage that  rendered  them  according  to  the  point  at 
issue  more  or  less  available  and  so  made  sometimes 
the  one,  sometimes  the  other  the  more  prominent. 
On  the  whole  however  it  will  be  seen  that  they 


The  Catholic  Doctrine.  101 

were  complementary  and  came  to  be  used  to  em- 
phasize the  opposite  aspects  of  the  one  truth.  The 
relation  of  the  divine  Son  to  the  divine  Father 
was  in  the  church  as  in  the  Scriptures  expressed  by 
the  term  "  begotten  "  or  "  born  "  and  more  precisely 
"only-begotten."  In  fact  this  relation  if  it  were 
not  expressed  would  be  necessarily  implied  by  the 
titles  Father  and  Son,  if  used  in  earnest.  What  pos- 
sible real  relation  can  Father  and  Son  bear  to  each 
other  but  that  of  begetter  and  begotten  ?  Now  just 
this  most  primary  and  essential  of  catholic  terms, 
which  was  supposed  to  express  the  real  divinity  of 
the  Son,  God  of  God,  was  as  we  have  seen  selected 
as  the  basis  of  the  Arian  attack  upon  the  catholic 
truth  expressed  by  it.  If  the  Son  was  born  or  be- 
gotten, before  he  was  begotten  he  was  not  and 
so  was  not  eternal.  The  answer  had  been  given 
long  before  the  objection  was  made,  first  and  chiefly 
by  Origen,  and  was  already  in  the  possession  of  the 
church.  It  was  in  the  form  of  the  church  doctrine 
of  the  "  eternal  generation  "  of  the  Son,  which  meant 
not  only  that  the  divine  Son  was  once  for  all  begotten 
in  or  from  eternity,  so  that  there  was  never  a  time  when 
he  had  not  been  begotten,  but  also  that  he  is  of  or  from 
the  Father  by  a  continuous  and  necessary  process 
of  generation  coeternal  with  himself,  because  of  his 
nature  and  not  merely  of  his  will  or  act.  The  best  of 
several  illustrations  in  common  and  familiar  use  was 
that  of  the  sun  which  by  the  very  fact  of  being  the 
sun  did  not  once  for  all  at  the  beginning  generate 
but  forever  of  necessity  generates  its  radiance.  The 
sun,  although  it  generates  or  begets,  could  never 


IO2  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

have  been  before  or  without  its  radiance.  We  might 
say,  "  Where  the  sun,  there  its  radiance ;  the  radiance 
coexists  in  the  sun  without  any  beginning  from  it; 
neither  in  idea  nor  by  a  moment  of  time  does  the 
sun  precede  its  radiance ;  the  radiance  is  of  the  nature 
or  essence  or  substance  of  the  sun ;  and  so  on  indefi- 
nitely." In  identical  language  the  church  expressed 
the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  and  so  his  coeternity 
with  the  Father;  an  answer  certainly  to  the  Arian 
contention  that  if  he  was  born  there  must  have  been 
a  time  before  he  was  born. 

Not  only  the  coeternity  of  the  Son  is  thus  vindi- 
cated but  also  the  essential  identity  of  his  nature  with 
that  of  the  Father.  For  in  generation  the  Father 
reproduces  himself  and  not  anything  else  in  the  Son ; 
not  indeed  his  personality  but  at  least  his  own  na- 
ture and  not  another.  So  that  we  must  say  of  God, 
not  only  where  the  Father  there  the  Son,  but  what 
the  Father  that  the  Son.  The  Arians,  driven  from 
other  points,  took  refuge  in  the.one  attribute  of  aseity, 
in  which  they  concentrated  the  whole  nature  of  God. 
It  is  the  distinctive  nature  of  God  to  be  underived 
or  to  come  from  himself  alone  (a  se).  A  God  derived 
from  another  than  himself  by  generation  or  otherwise 
is  not  God.  They  were  only  determined  to  maintain 
that  he  who  is  identified  with  the  world  by  creation 
or  with  the  lowliness  and  weakness  of  humanity  by 
incarnation  could  not  be  the  most  high  and  only  God. 

With  the  church  however  there  was  the  very  differ- 
ent and  even  more  imperative  necessity  to  identify 
while  distinguishing  the  incarnate  Son  and  the  unin- 
carnate  Father.  And  in  this  the  fathers  learned  by 


Logos  and  Son.  103 

gradual  experience  the  opposite  values  of  the  terms 
"  Logos  "  and  "  Son  "  as  emphasizing  if  not  exclusively 
expressing,  one  of  them  the  identity,  the  other  the 
distinction.  The  Logos  on  the  one  hand,  the  divine 
reason  and  Word,  the  wisdom,  will  and  energy  of 
God,  might  if  taken  alone  be  thought  of  as  an  im- 
personal attribute,  faculty  or  function  of  the  Godhead, 
but  it  cannot  be  thought  as  ever  having  been  wanting 
to  it:  God  could  never  have  been  without  self-ex- 
pression or  active  will,  and  so  his  Logos  is  coeternal  and 
necessary  part  of  himself,  of  his  very  nature  and  ^be- 
ing ;  while  on  the  other  hand  the  term  "  Son  "  must  of 
necessity  mean  the  reproduction  and  repetition  of  one 
self  in  another  self  between  whom  and  the  first  there 
must  be  some  distinction.  If  on  the  one  hand  the  term 
"  Logos  "  alone  were  used  it  might  be  said  that  the 
divine  Word,  energizing  in  the  natural  creation  and  in- 
carnating itself  in  the  spiritual,  need  not  be  personally 
distinguished  from  the  single  personal  Godhead;  if 
on  the  other  hand  the  term  "  Son  "  only  were  used 
the  distinction  might  be  pushed,  as  by  the  Arians,  to 
the  disruption  of  the  essential  identity  of  the  persons 
distinguished.  But  if  the  incarnate  one  is  both  Logos 
and  Son  he  must  be  both  essentially  identical  with 
the  Father  and  personally  distinct  from  him.  This 
was  afterward  in  Nicene  language  expressed  by  the 
phrase  "  God  of  God  " ;  as  God  he  was  one  with  the 
Father,  as  of  or  from  God  he  was  distinct  from 
the  Father.  ~ 

Returning  to  the  term  "begotten,"  the  church 
always  recognized  different  senses  and  acts  in  which 
it  might  be  applied  to  the  Son  of  God.  As  Logos  of 


IO4  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

the  natural  creation  he  might  be  said  to  have  come 
forth  from  God  in  the  birth  or  coming  into  being  of 
the  natural  creation.  He  was  begotten  or  born  into 
humanity  in  his  birth  of  the  Virgin.  And  in  his  hu- 
manity he  was  begotten  anew  when  humanity  in  his 
person  was  born  through  his  death  and  resurrection 
into  the  Sonship  to  which  it  had  been  eternally  pre- 
destinated. But  the  church  would  never  admit  that 
he  who  came  forth  from  the  Father  in  the  birth  of 
the  natural  creation  had  not  previously  existed  from 
eternity  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  both  as  Logos 
and  Son,  both  one  with  and  distinct  from  him ;  and 
this  is  what  was  intended  to  be  expressed  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  eternal  generation. 

When  driven  to  make  some  distinction  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son  the  Sabellians  had  admitted 
a  temporal  but  not  an  eternal  distinction.  They  said 
that  the  Logos  was  eternally  contained  in  the  one 
personality  of  the  Godhead,  but  in  time,  in  the  tem- 
poral acts  of  creation  and  incarnation,  he  became 
distinguished  and  was  then  called  Son  as  begotten  of 
the  Father  in  those  acts.  But  in  reality  he  was  still 
the  Father,  only  to  be  distinguished  from  him  as 
a  different  manifestation  of  himself  from  that  in 
which  he  is  Father  and  not  Son.  On  this  line  some 
Sabellians  avoided  Patripassianism  by  falling  on  the 
other  side  into  a  sort  of  higher  Ebionism,  teaching 
that  it  was  not  the  Father  himself  but  only  a  virtue 
or  energy  of  the  Father  that  was  incarnate  in  Jesus 
Christ.  Thus  the  Sabellians  held  an  economic  but 
not  an  essential  Trinity,  a  Trinity  of  temporal  mani- 
festations but  not  of  eternal  persons.  Against  all 


Constantine  the  Great.  105 

which  tendencies  the  church  erected  the  doctrine  of 
the  etermdjreneration  as  its  bulwark  and  defence. 

What  gave  Arianism  a  vitality  as  well  as  a  prom- 
inence and  importance  that  it  would  never  have 
acquired  by  itself  was  the  accident  of  its  civil  and 
political  power  and  influence.  Just  when  the  contro- 
versy was  well  under  way  in  Alexandria  the  first 
Christian  emperor  Constantine  the  Great  was  by  his 
victories  over  his  colleague  Licinius  making  himself 
sole  master  of  the  Roman  empire  and  so  of  the  world. 
It  was  not  Arius  and  his  associates  but  Constantine 
and  his  successors  that  lifted  the  Arian  discussion 
into  a  world- wide  and  historical  significance  such  as 
attaches  to  no  other  heresy. 

There  can  be  no  question  of  Constantine's  title  to 
the  cognomen  of  "  Great."  The  victorious  career 
that  made  him  sole  emperor  and  gave  him  a  secure 
and  powerful  empire  and  reign,  proved  him  a  great 
general.  The  civil  administration  that  reorganized 
the  empire  under  a  new  constitution  and  marked  a 
new  epoch  if  not  revolution  in  its  internal  history 
was  evidence  of  his  greatness  as  a  statesman.  But  it 
was  Constantine's  policy  in  reference  to  Christianity, 
even  though  we  regard  it  as  nothing  more  than  policy, 
that  constituted  his  chief  claim  to  greatness.  It  is 
useless  however  to  deny  his  sincere  and  profound 
interest  in  Christianity.  It  may  not  have  been  in  the 
truest  and  deepest  sense  a  personally  religious  interest, 
and  it  certainly  was  not  such  as  morally  to  transform 
his  character  and  impart  to  him  the  spirit  and  life  of 
the  founder  of  the  religion  he  professed.  And  yet 
even  here  judgment  belongeth  not  unto  us ;  he  be- 


io6  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

came  a  Christian  late,  in  the  midst  of  evil  and  violent 
times,  and  in  possession  of  almost  absolute  and  irre- 
sponsible power.  We  do  not  know  the  full  secret  of 
his  worst  crimes  such  as  the  execution  of  Crispus  and 
others  of  his  own  household  or  how  much  domestic 
strife,  unhappiness,  misrepresentation  and  intrigue  de- 
ceived and  darkened  his  judgment  and  apparently, 
as  it  seemed  to  him,  necessitated  his  actions.  Again, 
it  may  not  have  been  a  very  profound  or  correct 
theological  interest  which  Constantine  felt  in  Chris- 
tianity, though  that  may  exist  in  the  absence  of  one 
truly  spiritual  and  religious.  He  certainly  estab- 
lished no  claim  to  being  a  theologian  and  yet  it 
was  no  mere  vulgar  or  political  pretence  that  he 
made  of  being  such ;  he  was  sincerely  interested, 
and  no  doubt  at  times  thought  himself  one.  What 
he  said  most  impressively  in  public  that  was  theo- 
logically true  and  sound  was  said  perhaps  at  second 
hand,  and  he  said  much  also  that  betrayed  his  igno- 
rance. But  he  had  honestly  made  Christianity  his 
cause  and  himself  its  most  illustrious  and  exalted 
patron  and  champion  and  he  was  deeply  and  ear- 
nestly concerned  about  it  and  anxious  to  represent 
and  further  it  intelligently  and  wisely. 

Herein  was  Constantine's  true  greatness  in  the 
matter.  He  had  by  his  military  genius  unified  the 
empire  and  was  by  his  political  genius  reorganizing 
its  internal  administration.  But  he  was  great  enough 
to  perceive  that  what  he  could  do  in  this  way  from 
without  was  not  what  the  world  he  was  dealing 
with  most  needed ;  that  it  was  all  nothing  and  would 
come  to  nothing  without  a  moral  and  thereto  a 


Sincerity  of  his  Policy.  107 

religious  reconstitution  of  individual  and  personal 
life  and  character  and  of  general  society.  He  was 
the  first  of  the  emperors  to  perceive  that  old  things 
were  passing  away  and  that  there  was  but  one  thing 
in  the  world  that  was  new  and  capable  of  renew- 
ing it.  The  old  religions  had  had  their  day  and 
lost  their  power  and  he  had  not  the  folly  of  his 
nephew  Julian  to  suppose  that  new  life  could  be 
breathed  into  old  bodies.  Philosophy  had  outgrown 
its  faith  and  become  critical  and  sceptical  and  no 
longer  exercised  any  positive  and  constructive  influ- 
ence, and  scepticism  in  thought,  as  soon  as  it  becomes 
general  or  universal,  is  corruption  in  morals  and  dis- 
integration in  personal  and  social  life  and  order.  As 
in  material  things  integration  into  masses  is,  depen- 
dent upon  the  forces  resident  in  the  elementary  atoms 
that  compose  them,  molecular  attractions,  repulsions, 
affinities  and  such  like,  so  does  society  depend  upon 
the  vitality  of  the  spiritual  and  moral  forces  resident 
in  individuals,  and  what  social  life  is  public  life 
and  politics  and  the  state  itself  will  be.  No  matter 
how  political  his  motive  there  is  no  possibility  of 
doubting,  at  first  at  least  and  for  a  long  time,  the 
Emperor  Constantine's  concern  for  the  moral  and 
even  spiritual  reform  of  private  character  and  social 
life  in  his  empire.  It  has  been  remarked,  in  speaking 
of  the  failures  as  well  as  successes  of  his  personal 
policy :  "  Nevertheless  we  must  give  him  credit  for 
a  sincere  desire  for  moral  reform  and  confess  that 
henceforward  there  was  a  marked  increase  if  not  in 
nobility  of  character  at  least  in  outward  respectabil- 
ity of  conduct."  He  may  have  succeeded  only  so  far 


io8  TJie  Ecumenical  Councils. 

as  the  outward  respectability  of  conduct,  but  if  he 
failed  to  base  this  upon  the  deeper  nobility  of  charac- 
ter it  was  not  because  he  had  not  aimed  to  build  on 
this, — as  to  lay  this  too  in  the  one  foundation  of  a 
true  faith  as  well  as  a  pure  morality. 

Constantine  was  then  the  first  mind  at  the  head  of 
fthe  world's  affairs  to  realize  what  Christianity  might 
be  to  the  social  and  political  life  of  an  empire  whose 
vital  forces  were  spent,  whose  internal  bonds  dis- 
solved, and  which  was  rapidly  undergoing  corrup- 
tion and  hastening  to  destruction.  As  an  actual  matter 
of  fact  Christianity  with  all  its  human  intermixture 
of  weakness  and  failure  was  the  salt  that  saved 
the  world,  that  in  the  disintegration  of  the  old  sup- 
plied the  principle  and  power  of  a  new  integration 
of  personal,  social  and  political  life  and  rendered 
possible  if  it  did  not  itself  create  the  new  civilization 
which  calls  itself  by  its  name  and  is  dated  from  its 
birth.  And  Constantine  was  the  first  of  the  rulers  of 
the  world  to  recognize  this  and  summon -it  to  its 
high  mission  and  destiny.  He  did  not  expect  too 
much  but  he  expected  it  too  impatiently  and  was 
disappointed  at  not  finding  it  immediately  all  that  he 
had  hoped.  Perhaps  it  was  his  disappointment  in 
Christianity  that  is  responsible  for  much  of  what  so 
disappoints  us  at  last  in  him  as  a  Christian.  Alas ! 
Christianity  lives  and  acts,  is  known  and  judged 
only  through  us  and  has  to  carry  the  weight  and 
bear  the  blame  of  all  we  are,  and  so  always  to  human 
vision  fails  or  falls  short  of  what  is  expected  of  it. 
Nevertheless  in  God's  time  and  way  it  accomplishes 
that  whereunto  it  is  sent.  We  shall  see  that  Constan- 


Gradual  Approach  to  Christianity.    109 

tine  looked  for  a  united  church  and  a  united  empire 
and  world  as  the  immediate  result  of  the  Council  of 
Nicaea.  The  immediate  result  was  exactly  the  re- 
verse ;  the  church  and  the  world  were  plunged  into 
a  state  of  confusion  and  strife  out  of  which  he  saw 
no  hope  in  his  lifetime  of  the  peace  and  tranquillity 
of  which  he  had  dreamed  and  for  which  he  sighed. 
Just  this  period  of  his  life,  succeeding  the  council,  was 
marked  by  the  greatest  vacillation  in  his  own  attitude, 
religiously  and  theologically,  and  by  his  worst  ex- 
cesses and  crimes.  If  he  sinned  more  than  others 
against  the  religion  he  had  so  conspicuously  professed, 
it  may  be  in  part  at  least  because  he  expected  more 
from  it  and  was  more  than  any  other  deceived  and 
disappointed  by  it. 

More  or  less  predisposed  in  its  favor  by  inheritance 
from  his  father  Constantius,  who  had  steadily  main- 
tained an  attitude  of  tolerance  and  kindness  toward 
it,  Constantine's  actual  approaches  to  Christianity 
were  very  gradual.  Whether  drawn  to  it  in  greater 
proportion  by  policy,  by  superstition  or  by  an  en- 
lightened intelligence  and  faith,  the  process  in  itself 
by  which  he  was  brought  was  both  a  rational  and 
religious  one.  When  in  the  year  312  he  had  the 
vision  of  the  labarum  and  inscribed  upon  his  banner 
the  monogram  of  Christ,  however  we  may  explain 
the  facts  or  however  little  he  may  be  proved  to  have 
known  of  Christ  at  the  time,  we  cannot  resist  the 
conclusion  that  it  was,  in  accordance  with  the  inscrip- 
tion upon  the  triumphal  arch  erected  in  Rome  to 
commemorate  his  victory,  "  instinctu  divinitatis"  by 
an  instinct  of  divinity  that  he  was  moved  to  place 


no  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

himself  and  his  cause  under  the  auspices  and  bless- 
ing of  the  hitherto  despised  and  persecuted  religion 
which  was  predestined  to  the  conquest  of  the  world. 
Christianity  had  as  much  to  do  with  his  success  as  he 
with  its  future  triumphs.  On  the  lowest  ground  of 
superstition,  the  heathen  gods  were  no  longer  a  name 
to  conjure  with ;  their  power  was  gone,  and  the  very 
soldiers  of  Licinius  felt  their  inferiority  and  disad- 
vantage in  still  offering  to  them  sacrifice  and  worship 
in  the  face  of  the  opposing  labarum  which  was  every- 
where become  a  talisman  of  victory. 

By  a  succession  of  edicts  the  Christians  were  in 
the  year  313  for  the  first  time  in  the  enjoyment  of  a 
complete  toleration  throughout  the  empire.  Constan- 
tine  was  beginning  to  interest  himself  in  the  internal 
affairs  and  disputes  of  the  church  and  very  soon  had 
forced  upon  him  that  policy  of  interference  in  them 
which  was  to  grow  up  into  the  alliance  of  church  and 
state  that  has  ever  since  played  such  a  part  in  the 
history  of  both.  However  impracticable  it  might  be 
in  itself  and  however  unequal  he  proved  to  the  task 
of  carrying  it  out,  there  is  no  denying  him  from  the 
beginning,  in  connection  with  their  relation  to  each 
other,  an  idea  and  policy  that  had  in  it  elements  of 
both  goodness  and  greatness. 

In  his  civil  administration  Constantine  strove  un- 
successfully to  combine  two  principles  which  were 
both  strong  in  him  but  which  it  was  difficult  to  har- 
monize. The  first  was  a  real  regard  in  theory  at 
least  for  the  rights  of  individuals,  of  private  life  and 
natural  society ;  we  have  spoken  of  his  zeal  to 
animate  and  reform  these  as  the  only  basis  of  pub- 


His  zeal  for  Unity  and  Uniformity.     1 1 1 

lie  or  national  strength  and  prosperity.  The  other 
was  a  passion  for  organization  and  order,  not  only 
for  unity  but  also  uniformity.  He  wanted  the  em- 
pire and  for  this  end  he  wanted  the  church  to  be 
one  and  identical  throughout.  The  chief  thing  that 
had  attracted  him  to  Christianity  was  its  claim  and 
essential  nature  to  be  a  bond  of  perfectness  capable 
of  making  and  destined  to  make  all  things  one.  He 
saw  in  its  unity  and  universality  an  instrument  for 
welding  together  the  discordant  elements  and  parts 
of  the  empire  and  the  world.  The  idea  and  policy 
of  his  life  are  well  expressed  in  a  letter  to  Alexander 
and  Arius  on  the  subject  of  their  dispute,  and  nothing 
can  better  show  the  mind  and  attitude  of  Constantine 
at  just  the  point  of  time  at  which  we  have  arrived. 
"Two  principles,"  he  said,  "had  guided  his  actions: 
the  first,  to  unify  the  belief  of  all  nations  with  regard 
to  the  divinity  into  one  consistent  form ;  the  second,  to 
set  in  order  the  body  of  the  world  which  was  laboring 
as  it  were  under  a  grievous  sickness." 

In  his  zeal  to  promote  unity  in  the  church,  Con- 
stantine vacillated  between  the  two  impulses  or  dispo- 
sitions of  which  we  have  spoken,  at  one  time  inclined 
to  leave  matters  to  their  own  natural  working  and 
to  respect  the  rights  of  individual  opinions  and  choice, 
at  another  undertaking  to  enforce  agreement  and 
consent  by  the  pressure  of  legal  disabilities  and  pen- 
alties. Neither  seemed  to  succeed  and  it  was  without 
doubt  the  disappointment  of  his  life  that  he  could 
not  make  Christianity  and  through  it  the  body  of 
the  world  one  and  sound  and  so  save  it  from  its 
grievous  sickness. 


112  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

As  far  back  as  the  edicts  of  toleration,  the  stipu- 
lated condition  of  its  toleration  was  that  Christianity 
should  be  one  thing,  undivided  by  heresies  and 
schisms.  But  Constantine's  personal  interference 
with  the  faith  as  well  as  internal  order  of  the  church 
began  against  his  will  and  protest  when  he  was 
forced  by  pressure  from  both  sides  to  arbitrate  in 
the  quarrel  between  the  Donatists  and  Catholics  of 
Carthage  and  North  Africa.  To  decide  it  he  assem- 
bled the  almost  ecumenical  Council  of  Aries  in  the 
year  314.  And  so  was  established  the  precedent  that 
was  followed  by  the  much  more  serious  personal  in- 
terference of  the  emperor  in  the  more  difficult  heresy 
of  Arianism,  and  at  the  greater  Council  of  Nicaea. 

When  the  Nicene  Council  had  completed  its 
labors  with  apparent  unanimity  and  success  Constan- 
tine  assumed  that  the  matter  was  settled  and  the 
world  would  be  at  peace.  When  a  few  resisted  the 
pressure  brought  to  bear  on  them  and  were  still 
recalcitrant,  in  his  impatience  he  attempted  to  force 
them  into  agreement,  was  willing  to  proceed  to  the 
extremest  penalty,  and  did  inflict  that  of  banishment. 
Then,  seeming  to  realize  that  spiritual  unity  and  har- 
mony could  not  be  effected  by  material  compulsion, 
he  reverted  to  the  opposite  policy  of  conciliation,  made 
friends  himself  with  Arius,  was  persuaded  by  his  ad- 
herents that  he  was  really  not  as  unsound  as  he  had 
been  represented,  and  insisted  upon  Athanasius  tak- 
ing the  same  view  and  restoring  him  to  communion 
and  to  his  former  position  in  Alexandria.  Athanasius 
refused  and  while  still  maintaining  the  decrees  of 
Nicaea  Constantine  began  to  find  himself  more  and 


Failure  of  Constantine' s  Policy,       113 

more  acting  with  the  Arians  against  the  church.  By 
degrees  he  succumbed  to  the  wiles  and  fell  under  the 
influence  of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  the  ablest  and 
most  unscrupulous  of  the  Arian  party,  by  whom  the 
last  offices  of  religion  were  rendered  him  at  his  death. 
So  Constantine's  policy  of  unity  and  uniformity  in 
church  and  state  came  to  an  unsuccessful  issue  and 
we  shall  see  that  under  his  successors  the  failure  grew 
to  tragical,  almost  fatal  dimensions  and,  humanly 
speaking,  all  but  made  shipwreck  of  Christianity  by 
making  the  church  and  the  world  wholly  and  hope- 
lessly Arian. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   COUNCIL   OF   NIC^A. 

HE  conception  as  well  as  the  realization 
of  the  idea  of  an  ecumenical  council  must 
no  doubt  be  conceded  to  Constantine.  He 
was  on  the  way  to  it  when  he  summoned 
the  synod  at  Aries,  to  which  St.  Augus- 
tine afterward  appealed  as  a  universal  one,  and  he 
accomplished  it  at  Nicaea.  He  himself  said  publicly, 
"  God  it  was  on  whose  suggestion  I  acted  in  summon- 
ing the  bishops  to  meet  in  such  numbers;"  and  the 
council  at  its  close  declared  that  "  it  was  by  the  grace 
of  God  and  the  piety  of  the  emperor  in  assembling 
us  that  the  great  and  holy  synod  came  together." 
It  was  not  of  course  that  there  had  not  been  local 
councils  to  meet  local  exigencies,  but  there  was  a 
long  step  between  these  and  the  conception  of  the 
church  as  the  church,  the  body  of  Christ,  coming 
together  as  an  organic  whole,  to  bear  testimony  to 
its  common  faith  and  to  give  expression  to  its  corpo- 
rate life.  This  does  not  mean  of  course  that  either 
Constantine  or  the  council  fully  realized  at  first  the 
significance  and  importance  of  the  gathering.  There 
was  always  in  the  church  an  instinct  and  sense  of  its 
unity  as  a  single  body  under  a  single  Head,  as  the 

114 


Note  of  Ecumenicity.  115 

one  bride  of  the  heavenly  Bridegroom,  as  the  unity 
of  Christians  not  only  with  Christ  but  also  with  one 
another  in  Christ.  There  was  always  the  claim  of  an 
organic,  common,  corporate  faith  and  life,  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  more  or  less  incomplete  faith  and  life 
of  individuals  even  doctors  and  saints.  But  the  idea 
of  a  corporate  or  catholic  utterance  or  expression  of 
itself  through  a  gathering  so  truly  representative  of 
its  whole  or  corporate  self  as  to  make  it  the  voice  of 
the  church  had  not  yet  fully  entered  into  its  mind. 
There  is  every  evidence  of  tentativeness  and  of  only 
a  growing  certainty  and  confidence  in  itself  pervading 
the  council ;  and  of  course  the  final  verdict  of  ecu- 
menicity or  of  its  having  actually  given  expression  to 
the  general  mind  came  only  with  the  subsequent 
experience  and  consent  of  the  church  that  it  had 
done  so. 

The  records  are  exceedingly  few ;  they  are  limited 
to  what  was  at  last  agreed  upon  and  subscribed,  and 
this  includes  only  the  creed,  twenty  canons  and  a 
synodical  letter.  Most  of  our  information  of  the 
proceedings  comes  from  the  later  correspondence  of 
Athanasius  and  of  Eusebius,  and  as  these  two  were 
not  altogether  of  one  mind,  as  we  shall  see,  their 
impressions  and  accounts  do  not  always  agree.  As 
most  convenient  for  illustrating  the  main  business  of 
the  council,  with  which  we  are  chiefly  concerned,  we 
will  consider  successively  in  all  their  relations  to  it,  * 
(i)  the  Emperor  Constantine,  (2)  the  Arian  leaders, 
(3)  the  representatives,  like  the  historian  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea,  of  the  conservatives  or  party  of  compromise, 
and  (4)  the  positive  and  thoroughgoing  catholics, 


1 1 6  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

like  Athanasius,  bent  on  bringing  the  discussion  to 
some  decisive  conclusion  and  action. 

i.  Constantine  had  entered  with  deep  concern  into 
the  troubles  of  Alexandria  which  threatened  to  en- 
danger the  unity  and  peace  of  Christendom  and  of 
the  empire.  His  first  feeling  was  one  simply  of 
amazement  and  indignation  that  the  representatives 
of  Christianity  should  excite  such  discord  and  risk 
such  consequences  upon  such  slight  differences.  He 
was  unable  to  see  any  cause  for  so  bitter  a  contro- 
versy and  writes  to  Alexander  and  Arms,  urging 
upon  them  the  insignificance  of  the  issue  between 
them,  and  entreating  them  to  withdraw  their  mutual 
charges  and  restore  quiet  and  tranquillity  to  the 
church  and  to  himself.  The  letter  and  the  mission 
of  restoring  harmony  were  intrusted  to  Hosius,  bishop 
of  Cordova  in  Spain,  who  had  for  some  time  been 
the  emperor's  closest  friend  and  adviser  in  matters 
religious  and  ecclesiastical.  When  Hosius  returned 
unsuccessful  and  no  doubt  better  informed  himself 
upon  the  true  nature  and  importance  of  the  issue 
dividing  the  parties,  the  emperor  began  to  take  a 
deeper  and  more  serious  view  of  the  situation.  There 
were  at  the  time  three  issues  disturbing  the  church, 
the  old  paschal  controversy  which  had  come  down 
almost  from  the  beginning  as  to  the  day  on  which 
Easter  should  be  celebrated,  the  Meletian  schism,  a 
*local  and  purely  practical  quarrel  which  had  been 
going  on  for  some  time  in  Egypt,  and  now  this  Arian 
heresy  which,  arising  it  may  be  said  somewhat  ac- 
cidentally in  Alexandria,  was  soon  shown  to  have 
had  its  real  roots  farther  east  in  that  Antiochian  school 


The  Emperor  and  the  Council.       117 

of  Lucian  of  which  Arius  was  a  disciple.  Combining 
these  three  questions  in  the  common  motive  of  an 
ecumenical  or  world- wide  unity  and  order  which 
always  actuated  him,  the  emperor  began  his  prepa- 
rations for  assembling  the  great  council.  He  wrote 
letters  to  all  the  bishops  inviting  and  urging  them  to 
meet  with  all  speed  at  Nicaea;  he  himself  provided 
conveyances  and  other  facilities  for  their  journey ;  and 
he  made  every  preparation  for  their  welcome  and 
entertainment.  The  sessions  were  held  in  a  large 
church  in  the  centre  of  the  imperial  palace.  After 
a  number  of  preliminary  and  informal  discussions,  in 
which  much  of  the  ground  was  laid  for  the  subsequent 
formal  action,  the  council  being  duly  convened  the 
emperor  appeared  and  took  his  seat.  The  address 
of  welcome  and  of  thanks  to  him  from  the  council 
has  been  variously  ascribed  to  Hosius,  to  Eustathius 
of  Antioch,  to  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  and  to  Alex- 
ander of  Alexandria,  who  either  personally  or  from 
the  importance  of  their  sees  were  the  leading  bishops. 
The  bishop  of  Rome,  prevented  by  age  and  infirmity 
from  attending,  was  represented  by  two  presbyters. 
The  emperor  as  always  made  a  great  impression  by 
"  his  stately  presence,  lofty  stature  and  gentle  and 
even  modest  demeanor."  He  claimed  for  himself  in 
his  reply  the  position  of  a  fellow-servant  among  those 
whom  he  was  addressing ;  and  in  urging  upon  them 
unity  and  unanimity,  he  enforced  his  exhortation  to 
peace  and  harmony  by  producing  a  sealed  packet  of 
charges  and  complaints  which  had  been  preferred  to 
him  against  many  of  themselves,  and  publicly  throw- 
ing them  into  the  fire.  "  You  cannot,"  he  said,  "  be 


n8  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

judged  by  a  man  like  myself;  such  things  as  these 
must  wait  till  the  great  day  of  God's  judgment.  Christ 
has  advised  us  to  pardon  our  brother  if  we  wish  to 
obtain  pardon  ourselves." 

In  the  regular  discussions  at  several  critical  points 
he  took  a  personal  part.  We  might  judge  from 
Eusebius  that  when  the  latter  had  proposed  his  form 
of  a  creed  it  was  the  emperor  who  after  approving 
and  praising  it  moved  to  amend  by  the  introduction 
of  the  crucial  word  "  homoousion."  At  this  time,  per- 
haps as  a  result  of  his  deeper  study  of  the  question 
with  Hosius,  he  acted  with  the  catholic  party ;  and 
Eusebius  declares  that  his  explanations  and  arguments 
had  convinced  himself  and  removed  his  scruples  and 
objections  to  the  term.  On  the  whole  however,  it 
is  plain  that  the  emperor  exerted  no  undue  pressure 
upon  one  side  or  the  other  of  the  question.  His  inter- 
est and  influence  did  unquestionably  it  might  be  said 
even  force  the  council  to  express  itself,  to  formulate 
the  faith  of  the  church ;  but  with  the  form  which  that 
expression  took  he  did  not  interfere.  He  seems  to 
have  adhered  to  the  principle  expressed  by  him  years 
before  when  he  had  angrily  repulsed  the  appeal  of  the 
Donatists  to  him  from  the  decision  of  the  Council  of 
Aries.  "They  demand,"  he  had  said,  "  my  judgment, 
who  myself  expect  the  judgment  of  Christ.  The  judg- 
ment of  bishops  ought  to  be  accounted  as  if  God  him- 
self was  sitting  on  the  tribunal."  But  when  the  bishops 
had  spoken,  and  spoken  with  a  practical  unanimity, 
he  assumed  that  the  whole  matter  was  forever  closed 
and  did  not  hesitate  to  exercise  all  of  his  personal 
influence  and  his  imperial  authority  to  enforce  the 


The  Arians  in  the  Council.          119 

decision.  It  is  not  improbable  indeed  that  his  ex- 
planations and  advocacy  of  the  homoousion  were 
based  not  on  his  own  very  intelligent  comprehension 
of  that  term  or  deep  religious  interest  in  it  but  upon 
the  fact  that  the  preliminary  discussions  had  revealed 
the  mind  and  intention  of  the  council  to  impose  it. 

The  council  was  drawing  to  a  close  when,  on  July 
25,  A.D.  325,  the  emperor  invited  all  the  bishops  to 
a  great  banquet  in  commemoration  of  the  twentieth 
anniversary  of  his  accession  to  the  empire.  The  in- 
ward unity,  harmony  and  joy  that  pervaded  all  minds 
at  the  happy  consummation  of  their  labors,  as  well 
as  the  outward  glory  and  splendor  of  the  entertain- 
ment suggested  to  the  minds  of  the  plain  bishops 
the  thought  of  a  foretaste  of  heaven. 

2.  The  Arian  leaders  had  come  to  Nicaea  full  of 
confidence  and  hope.  When  expelled  from  Alex- 
andria Arius  had  found  among  his  fellow-disciples  of 
Lucian  in  the  East  very  able  and  powerful  supporters ; 
he  boasted  that  all  were  with  him  except  a  few  he- 
retical and  unlearned  men.  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia, 
an  imperial  city,  led  the  extremer  party;  but  the 
more  moderate  and  orthodox  Eusebius  of  Caesarea, 
the  most  learned  man  of  the  age,  represented  a  large 
section  which,  while  not  agreeing  with  Arius,  had 
not  discovered  anything  dangerously  heretical  in  his 
teaching,  and  so  expostulated  against  the  harshness 
of  his  treatment.  Arius  therefore  came  to  the  council 
counting  on  a  support  powerful  in  ability  and  not 
insignificant  in  numbers.  In  the  preliminary  discus- 
sions he  was  fully  drawn  out  and  did  not  hesitate  to 
present  his  whole  case.  After  the  formal  opening  his 


I2O  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

opinions  were  examined  in  the  presence  of  the  em- 
peror, and  the  Eusebians  undertook  his  defence  and 
justification.  It  was  immediately  made  apparent  that 
the  overwhelming  weight  of  sentiment  was  against 
him,  and  as  the  discussion  proceeded  the  number  of 
his  avowed  sympathizers  dwindled  down  to  a  very 
few.  A  letter  of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  which  had 
perhaps  been  used  as  a  campaign  document,  was 
laid  before  the  council,  as  also  a  formal  confession  of 
their  faith.  These  on  being  read  were  rent  in  pieces 
and  the  party  was  accused  of  having  betrayed  the 
truth.  After  this  the  only  question  for  the  Arians 
was  to  what  extent  they  could  escape  utter  condem- 
nation and  other  penalties  secular  as  well  as  religious, 
or  on  the  other  hand  how  far  they  could  bring  their 
consciences  to  accept  the  action  of  the  council  and 
remain  in  the  communion  of  the  church. 

3.  When  Arianism  had  been  so  summarily  disposed 
of,  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  and  the  conservatives  or 
party  of  compromise  came  to  the  front.  They  had 
previously  thought  Arius  hardly  treated,  but  fell  in 
now  with  the  condemnation  of  his  opinions  as  hereti- 
cal and  blasphemous.  They  had  a  creed  to  propose 
which  would  unite  all  parties,  even  the  Arians,  who 
could  all  have  signed  it.  It  was  scriptural,  and  it 
accorded  with  all  the  traditions  and  confessions  of 
faith  of  all  the  churches.  It  was  in  fact  the  creed 
in  use  in  Eusebius's  own  native  and  see  city  of  Caesa- 
rea, and  as  it  is  a  good  sample  of  the  creeds  in  use 
in  all  churches  prior  to  the  Nicene  Council,  as  it  was 
also  the  basis  of  the  creed  for  the  first  time  imposed 
on  the  whole  church  by  that  council,  it  may  be  well 


Conservatives  in  the  Council.         121 

to  give  it  as  it  originally  stood.  And  it  may  be  safely 
affirmed  that,  although  up  to  this  time  each  church 
had  its  own  confession  of  faith,  all  based  upon  the 
baptismal  formula,  there  was  no  church  in  Christen- 
dom whose  creed  did  not  substantially  accord  with 
this  of  Caesarea.  Eusebius,  in  his  report  to  his  church 
of  the  action  of  Nicaea,  writes  as  follows : 

"  Our  own  form  then,  which  was  read  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  emperor,  and  appeared  to  be  right  and 
proper,  is  expressed  in  these  terms :  As  we  have  re- 
ceived from  the  bishops  who  preceded  us,  as  we  have 
been  taught  in  the  rudimental  instructions  of  our 
childhood  and  when  we  were  subjects  of  the  bap- 
tismal rite,  and  as  we  have  learned  from  the  divine 
Scriptures;  as  we  have  believed  and  taught,  both  in 
the  order  of  presbyter  and  in  the  episcopal  dignity 
itself,  and  as  we  now  believe,  we  present  to  you  our 
profession  of  faith.  And  it  is  this :  We  believe  in 
one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  maker  of  all  things 
visible  and  invisible ;  and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Word  of  God,  God  of  God,  light  of  light,  life  of 
life,  the  only-begotten  Son,  the  first-born  of  every 
creature,  begotten  of  the  Father  before  all  ages,  by 
whom  all  things  were  made ;  who  for  our  salvation 
was  made  flesh,  and  lived  among  men,  and  suffered, 
and  rose  again  the  third  day,  and  ascended  to  the 
Father,  and  shall  come  again  in  glory  to  judge  quick 
and  dead.  We  believe  also  in  one  Holy  Spirit ;  be- 
lieving every  one  of  these  to  be  and  subsist,  the  Father 
truly  the  Father,  the  Son  truly  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  truly  the  Holy  Spirit;  as  our  Lord  when  he 
sent  his  disciples  to  preach  said,  '  Go  teach  all  na- 


122  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

tions,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and 
of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.' " 

After  Eusebius  had  read  his  proposed  creed,  which 
was  received  with  entire  and  universal  assent  and 
approbation,  there  was  a  pause  and  then  began  the 
real  issue  between  the  only  two  actual  parties  in  the 
council. 

It  was  perfectly  well  understood  that  the  motive 
and  intention  of  the  conservatives  was  not  merely 
to  present  an  unexceptionable  confession  of  faith  in 
which  the  whole  church  might  come  to  a  uniform  use, 
but  to  stave  off  the  discussion  and  decision  of  a  con- 
troversy which  they  were  afraid  to  face.  Beyond 
the  mere  immaterial  advantage  of  a  literal  uniformity 
in  their  public  confessions,  what  would  be  gained  by 
the  adoption  of  Eusebius's  creed  ?  Everybody  would 
have  accepted  it  and  continued  just  as  he  was;  the 
Arians  would  have  signed  it  and  been  Arians  still ; 
nothing  whatever  would  be  decided  by  it.  The  claim 
for  it  was  that  it  was  the  language  of  Scripture,  and 
of  the  traditional  faith ;  the  issue  made  was  that  it 
was  wrong  and  unwise  to  use  a  language  outside  of 
these  to  express  or  explain  divine  truth.  But  the 
question  was  not  what  Scripture  and  tradition  said — 
they  were  all  agreed  on  that ;  but  what  Scripture  and 
tradition  meant,  upon  which  they  disagreed.  You 
cannot  interpret  and  explain  Scripture  by  simple 
quotation  or  repetition  of  scriptural  language  or  ex- 
pressions, but  only  by  the  use  of  other  terms  by 
means  of  which  they  might  be  defined  and  illustrated. 
Eusebius's  creed  was  therefore  all  right  as  far  as  it 
went;  but  it  did  not  go  far  enough  even  to  touch, 


Athanasius  and  the  Catholics.        123 

much  less  solve,  the  real  difficulties  of  the  meaning 
of  Scripture  and  tradition  which  were  dividing  them 
and  which  were  the  reason  of  their  coming  together. 

4.  The  thoroughgoing  catholic  party  was  thus 
brought  forward  and  took  up  the  true  business  of  the 
council.  If  ever  in  human  history  there  was  a  man 
divinely  raised  up  and  endowed  to  meet  and  deal 
with  a  special  emergency  it  was  Athanasius.  He 
had  spent  some  years  in  the  household  of  Alexander, 
and  there  before  Arius  had  given  utterance  to  his 
heresy  and  when  he  was  scarcely  more  than  of  age, 
had  produced  his  great  work  upon  the  nature  of  the 
Incarnation,  "  the  first  attempt  that  had  been  made 
to  present  Christianity  and  the  chief  events  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  Christ  under  a  scientific  aspect."  The 
peculiar  qualifications  and  special  preparation  of 
Athanasius  have  been  generally  recognized  and  rep- 
resented somewhat  under  the  following  heads : 

A  Greek,  born  and  reared  in  Alexandria,  the  "  em- 
porium for  the  exchange  of  the  ideas  and  speculations 
as  well  as  the  products  of  all  climes,"  he  was  not  only 
himself  endowed  with  speculative  capacity  of  the 
highest  order  but  also  grew  up  in  daily  contact  with 
every  existing  form  of  religion  or  philosophy,  and 
was  an  observer,  student  and  thinker  from  his  earli- 
est youth. 

At  the  same  time  he  was  before  all  and  most  of 
all  a  student  of  the  Scriptures,  and  none  of  his  ad- 
versaries or  antagonists  could  surpass  him  in  love  for 
these  or  reverence  for  their  authority.  Having  to 
stand  for  freedom  from  their  mere  letter,  he  was  a 
true  interpreter  of  their  mind  and  spirit. 


124  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

In  addition,  he  was  certainly  behind  none  of  his 
contemporaries  in  acquaintance,  sympathy  and  ac- 
cord with  the  thought  and  life  of  the  church  before 
him.  Called,  as  he  was  to  be,  to  stand  for  the 
church  not  only  against  the  world  but  apparently 
against  itself,  he  was  able  to  stand  alone,  until  he 
could  recall  and  restore  it  to  itself,  and  reestablish  the 
divine  tradition  of  truth. 

Finally  it  was  not  the  least  providential  circum- 
stance of  the  career  of  Athanasius  that  his  very  youth 
when  called  into  the  arena  left  him  a  long  lifetime  in 
which  to  labor  and  to  suffer  for  the  principles  which 
none  of  his  contemporaries  but  himself  could  have 
brought  to  their  final  and  permanent  triumph ;  and 
that  for  this  he  was  endowed  with  not  only  the  in- 
tellectual and  the  spiritual  but  also  with  the  practi- 
cal and  moral  qualifications  necessary  to  carry  him 
through  so  intense  and  protracted  a  strain. 

It  has  been  said  of  Arius  that  he  possessed  very 
highly  the  logical  and  dialectical  but  was  devoid  of 
the  intuitional  faculties.  It  was  just  in  these  latter 
that  Athanasius  was  strongest.  "  It  was,"  says  Dor- 
ner,  "  his  intuitional  perception  of  the  Redeemer  in 
his  totality  that  marked  out  for  Athanasius  the  direc- 
tion which  he  ought  to  pursue."  But  this  intuitional 
perception  of  the  Redeemer  in  his  totality  requires  ex- 
actly a  combination  of  all  the  above  qualifications,  a 
mind  at  once  spiritual,  scriptural,  catholic,  and  in  the 
highest  sense  rational  and  practical. 

Athanasius  was  a  year  or  two  under  thirty,  and 
only  a  deacon,  when  he  accompanied  Alexander  to 
Nicaea.  There  is  no  telling  to  what  extent  he  had 


Arius  and  Athanasius.  125 

already  been  the  inspirer  of  his  bishop  in  the  contro- 
versy with  Arius,  and  he  went  thoroughly  armed  and 
furnished  for  the  fray.  It  is  very  certain  that  in  the 
preliminary  discussions  he  quickly-  took  the  leading 
part,  and  there  must  have  been  moments  when  the 
issue  narrowed  down  to  a  duel  between  the  arch- 
representatives  of  the  opposing  causes,  Arius  and 
Athanasius.  Pen-and-ink  pictures  of  the  great  pro- 
tagonists have  not  been  wanting.  There  was  a  dif- 
ference of  forty  years  between  their  ages.  Arius  was 
tall,  serious,  impressive,  insinuating  in  his  bearing  and 
manners ;  a  dialectician  and  politician,  but,  in  appear- 
ance at  _least,  of  no  mean  or  vulgar  type.  He  had 
certainly  the  arts  of  mental  reservation  and  dissimu- 
lation, and  employed  them  later;  but  on  this  occasion 
undue  confidence  perhaps  led  him  'to  be  outspoken 
and  open  enough.  Athanasius  was  small, — a  mere 
"  manikin  "  the  Emperor  Julian  called  him  later,  in 
derision, — and  with  the  slight  stoop  of  a  student 
but  with  a  beautiful  face  which  was  compared  to 
that  of  an  angel.  He  went  to  the  council  nominally 
as  the  private  secretary  of  his  bishop,  in  reality  as 
the  controlling  spirit  and  genius  of  all  its  pro- 
ceedings. Throughout  these  "  he  was  by  no  means," 
says  Neander,  "  contending  for  a  mere  speculative  for- 
mula; ...  it  was  an  essentially  Christian  principle 
which  actuated  him."  His  entire  feeling  and  motive 
is  expressed  in  his  own  simple  words,  "  Our  contest 
is  for  our  all."  The  party,  of  which  he  was  the  real 
if  not  the  nominal  leader,  seems  not  only  to  have  care- 
fully arranged  beforehand  their  policy  which  was 
carried  through  with  great  moderation,  wisdom  and 


126  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 


skill ;  but  also  to  have  adopted  and  made  up  their  minds 
to  abide  by  the  crucial  term  which  was  destined  to 
become  the  very  effectual  test  of  Christian  orthodoxy. 
They  began  by  giving  the  Arians  full  time  and  scope 
and  even  encouragement  to  expose  and  so  refute  and 
ruin  themselves.  Then  they  listened  with  deference 
and  approval  to  the  conservatives  and  let  it  be  clearly 
seen  that  they  had  no  desire  or  reason  to  antagonize 
them,  as  indeed  there  was  no  issue  with  them  except 
upon  the  policy  of  so  defining  and  interpreting  the 
common  truth  as  to  make  it  clear  that  they  were 
agreed  as  to  its  meaning  and  not  merely  as  to  its  ex- 
pression. 

When  Eusebius  had  read  and  proposed  his  creed, 
it  was  no  one  of  them,  who  might  have  created  an- 
tagonism on  the  other  side,  it  was  the  fair-minded 
and  impartial  emperor  himself  whom  no  one  could 
accuse  of  partisanship,  who  commended  the  formula — 
but  proposed  the  sole  and  simple  amendment  of  the 
insertion  of  the  term  "  homoousion."  At  any  rate  it 
was  the  emperor  who  in  a  speech  so  defined  the 
term  and  explained  away  its  real  or  apparent  diffi- 
culties as  to  convince  the  learned  Eusebius  of  its 
innocence  and  gain  his  consent,  and  perhaps  that 
of  many  others,  to  its  adoption.  No  doubt  it  was 
Hosius  who  had  prepared  the  emperor  for  this  im- 
portant part,  but  the  pardonable  design  was  to  ac- 
complish in  peace  and  harmony  what  the  discerning 
emperor  saw  by  this  time  that  the  real  minds  and 
wills  of  the  council  had  come  with  the  determin- 
ation to  accomplish.  It  might  be  said  that  with- 
out the  aid  of  the  emperor  the  homoousion  could 


The  Creed  of  Niccea.  127 

never  have  been  passed  through  the  council.     That 
may  be,  but  it  is  very  certain  that,  with  the  aid  of  thej 
emperor,  no  other  real  definition  could  have  been 
passed.     The  providential  use  throughout  of  the  im- 
perial power  in  all  the  councils  seems  to  have  been 
that  it  acted  as  an  external  compulsion   upon"  the 
council  to  say  something,  to  come  to  some  real  de- 
cision.    And  when  it  had  to  do  that,  as  a  rule  it  could 
dnly~agree  upon  that  which  was  true;  truth  alone\ 
unites,  error  only  hopelessly  confuses  and   divides.) 
And  there  was  the  additional  safeguard  that  no  coun- 
cil stood  alone  and  only  stood  at  all  if  it  was  in  har- 
mony with  other  councils  and  with  the  world-wide 
and  age-long  mind  of  the  whole  church. 

When  the  ice  had  been  broken  by  the  aid  of 
the  emperor  other  amendments  followed,  under  the 
cumulative  effects  of  which  Eusebius  saw  his  creed 
quickly  transformed  from  what  had  been  only  an  in- 
strument of  truth  into  so  effective  an  offensive  and 
defensive  weapon  against  error  that  it  has  never  since 
been  possible  to  improve  it.  The  creed  as  it  came 
from  the  Council  of  Nicaea  and  before  it  received  its 
final  form  at  Constantinople  was  as  follows : 

"We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty, 
maker  of  all  things  both  visible  and  invisible ;  and  in 
one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  begotten  of 
the  Father,  an  only -begotten — that  is  from  the  es- 
sence (or  substance, "  ousia  ")  of  the  Father — God  from 
God,  light  from  light,  true  God  from  true  God,  be- 
gotten, not  made,  being  of  one  essence  (homoousion) 
with  the  Father;  by  whom  all  things  were  made, 
both  things  in  heaven  and  things  on  earth ;  who  for 


128  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

us  men  and  for  our  salvation  came  down  and  was 
made  flesh,  was  made  man,  suffered  and  rose  again 
the  third  day,  ascended  into  heaven,  cometh  to  judge 
quick  and  dead ;  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 

"  But  those  who  say  that  '  there  was  once  when 
he  was  not,'  and  'before  he  was  begotten  he  was 
not,'  and  '  he  was  made  of  things  that  were  not,'  or 
maintain  that  the  Son  of  God  is  of  a  different  es- 
sence, or  created,  or  subject  to  moral  change  or  altera- 
tion— these  doth  the  catholic  and  apostolic  church 
anathematize." 

In  the  body  of  the  creed  proper  the  vital  additions 
were  the  following :  Whereas  the  Arians  had  used  the 
term"  begotten  "  in  the  secondary  or  improper  sense 
of  created  or  made,  making  no  distinction  between 
the  generation  of  the  divine  Son  and  the  sense  in 
which  even  the  natural  creation  is  called  the  off- 
spring of  God;  and  teaching  that  he  was  only  the 
first  begotten  or  made,  and  made  of  the  mere  will 
of  the  Father  out  of  nothing;  the  creed  affirms  that 
he  was  bego,tten,  not  made ;  not  out  of  nothing,  or  of 
things  that  were  not,  but  of  the  ousia,  essence  or 
substance,  of  the  Father,  and  so  was  personally 

.homoousios,  or   of    identical    essence    or   sub  tance 
1 

'with  the  Father.  Moreover  as  against  the  false  an- 
thropology, as  well  as  theology,  of  the  Arian  con- 
ception of  the  incarnation,  to  the  article  "  was_made 
flesh  "  it  adds  "  was  made  jman,"  meaning  that  our 
Lord  took  flesh  not  merely  in  the  sense  of  a  human 
body  but  in  all  that  constitutes  a  true  and  complete 
manhood. 

The  difficulties,  inadequacies,  and  positive  disad- 


Necessity  of  Definitions.  1 29 

vantages  of  such  definitions  will  be  done  full  justice 
to  in  the  sequel;  at  present  we  shall  dwell  a  little 
upon  the  necessity  of  them.  Athanasius  was  as  free 
as  any  one  to  regret  the  necessity  of  employing  terms 
neither  scriptural  nor  theological  but  physical  and 
metaphysical  in  the  definition  of  spiritual  and  divine 
mysteries;  and  he  fully  admitted  not  only  their  in- 
sufficiency but  their  danger.  Others  before  him  had 
regretted  and  yet  had  not  been  able  to  avoid  the 
same  necessity;  neither  human  thought  nor  human 
language  can  represent  to  perfection  the  truth  of 
things  divine ;  we  can  only  approximate  it  by  ex- 
pressing as  well  as  we  may  the  truth  of  things  in- 
visible in  terms,  wrhich  are  all  that  we  have,  of  things 
visible.  When  therefore  we  say  that  the  Son  of 
God  is  homoousios,  of  one  essence  or  substance  with 
the  Father,  we  are  fully  aware  that  our  own  natural 
and  even  material  associations  with  the  word  "  ousia  " 
are  very  apt  to  mislead  in  the  application  of  it  to 
the  purely  spiritual  and  incomprehensible  being  of 
God.  But  what  are  we  to  do?  We  have  no  divine 
language  and  can  only  think  and  speak  with  the 
symbols  and  in  the  terms  at  our  command.  The 
one  thing  Athanasius  knew  and  wanted  to  state  in 
language  exact  enough,  technical  enough,  definite 
enough  to  guard  against  any  evasion  or  diminution 
or  perversion  of  it,  was  the  simple  primal  Christian 
fact  olf  not  only  the  very  humanity  but  the  very  per- 
sonal divinity  or  deity  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  summed 
up  and  embodied  in  himself  the  whole  Christian 
consciousness  that  all  of  God  and  all  of  man  were  met, 
united  and  consummated  in  the  all- reconciling  and 


130  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

all-completing  personal  work  and  exaltation  of  Jesus 
Christ.  As  a  matter  of  fact  that  great  essential 
Christian  truth  had  from  the  beginning  been  re- 
peatedly subject  to  misinterpretation  on  both  sides. 
Within  the  church  itself  the  use  of  scriptural  and  of 
ecclesiastical  and  catholic  language  and  the  repeti- 
tion of  true  confessions  of  faith  had  not  saved 
doctors  and  even  bishops  from  attaching  imperfect 
and  false  meanings  to  the  very  central  article  of  Chris- 
tian belief  and  life.  This  had  culminated  in  the 
unscriptural,  unchristian,  irrational,  and  irreligious 
teaching  of  Arius,  held  and  defended  under  the 
very  forms  and  as  the  true  meaning  of  Scripture  and 
catholic  tradition.  The  time  was  surely  come  when 
it  was  necessary  for  the  church  to  define  beyond  the 
possibility  of  misunderstanding  at  least  the  vital  and 
distinctive  and  essential  principle  of  Christianity. 

We  have  repeatedly  said  that  at  this  juncture  the 
doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  was  under  considera- 
tion on  its  divine  and  not  as  before  and  after  on  its' 
human  side ;  and  the  whole  dogmatic  affirmation  of 
the  Nicene  Council  was  contained  in  its  insistence 
upon  the  one  word  "  homoousion."  And  all  that  was 
meant  by  that  was  that  Jesus  Christ  was  God,  in  no 
lower  or  secondary  or  different  sense  from  that  in 
which  the  Father  is  God;  that  the  incarnation  was 
an  act  of  the  divine  personal  presence  and  operation 
in  human  nature  and  human  life.  Not  indeed  in 
the  sense  that  the  whole  Godhead  or  divine  selfhood 
was  contained  in  Christ,  and  yet  that  God  was  him- 
self and  not  by  any  mere  impersonal  virtue  or  in- 
fluence in  him. 


The  Arguments  of  Athanasius.       131 

It  has  been  remarked  that  while  we  have  no  rec- 
ord of  the  arguments  actually  employed  by  Athana- 
sius at  the  council  in  defence  of  the  real  divinity  of 
our  Lord,  we  can  easily  gather  what  they  must  have 
been  from  his  letters  and  other  writings;  and  that 
they  may  be  reduced  to  four  heads,  which  we  will 
briefly  develop. 

In  the  first  place  the  Scriptures :  by  which  we  do 
not  mean  the  explicit  statement  of  particular  passages 
merely,  but  that  whole  mind  and  meaning  of  the 
Scriptures  which  exhibits  Jesus  Christ  to  us  as  a  per- 
sonal revelation  of  God  himself  and  not  only  an  im- 
personal something  from  him. 

In  the  second  place  it  is  involved  in  the  very  no- 
tion of  that  unique  and  real  Sonship  which  the  church 
ascribes  to  him  alone,  and  which  cannot  mean  any- 
thing less  than  that  he  receives  from  the  Father  the 
essential  nature  of  the  Father,  which  must  therefore 
be  in  him  as  in  the  Father  eternal,  and  of  equal 
majesty,  glory  and  power;  with  the  sole  difference 
that  the  Father  as  father  is  underived  and  the  Son 
as  son  is  derived,  but  eternally  so — after  the  analogy 
of  the  sun  and  its  effluence. 

In  the  third  place  it  is  required  by  the  very  mean- 
ing of  an  absolute  religion,  of  the  divine  grace  and 
self-impartation  and  of  human  redemption  and  salva- 
tion. If  Athanasius  possessed,  as  we  have  attributed 
to  him,  that  intuitional  spiritual  faculty  which  makes 
the  spiritual  man  a  judge  of  spiritual  things,  as  spiritual 
things  are  the  test  of  the  spiritual  man,  we  shall  ex- 
pect to  find  in  him  not  a  mere  dependence  upon  the 
external  authority  of  Scriptures  or  tradition,  which 


132  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

need  themselves  to  be  interpreted  and  therefore  un- 
derstood, but  the  possession  of  that  spiritual  criterion 
by  which  the  church  as  a  whole  through  the  true 
representatives  and  leaders  of  its  thought  and  mind 
is  the  judge  and  interpreter  of  revelation  and  tradi- 
tion. He  appeals  accordingly,  as  we  find,  to  the 
universal  intuitive  perception  of  the  truth  of  God  and 
man,  and  what  must  be  the  meaning  of  their  absolute 
and  ultimate  relation  to  each  other  in  Jesus  Christ, 
if  there  is  to  be  in  him  a  real  divine-human  reconcilia- 
tion and  atonement. 

Finally,  in  the  fourth  place,  the  doctrine  of  the  real 
divinity  is  actually  that  which  has  been  the  teaching 
of  the  church  from  the  beginning,  whatever  may  have 
been  the  private  opinion  of  individuals.  So  that  reve- 
lation, the  intuitions  of  the  spiritual  reason  and  catholic 
agreement  and  consent  are  all  at  one  on  the  essential 
truth  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Under  the  pressure  of  the  emperor  to  come  to 
some  definite  conclusion  and  decision,  under  the  skil- 
ful guidance  of  Athanasius,  under  the  power  of  the 
truth  alone  to  unite  and  harmonize  diverse  minds  and 
tendencies,  above  all  under  the  controlling  provi- 
dence and  by  the  indwelling  and  helping  Spirit  and 
grace  of  God,  the  council  was  brought  to  a  practi- 
cal unanimity  of  action.  Of  the  three  hundred  and 
eighteen  bishops  who  according  to  the  traditional 
computation  composed  the  council,  there  were  only 
two  or  three  at  the  last  who  refused  to  sign  the  creed. 
The  emperor  accepted  the  result  as  inspired  and  ban- 
ished the  recalcitrants  along  with  Arius,  and  so  mat- 
ters for  the  moment  were  settled. 


Result  of  the  Council.  133 

We  do  not  dwell  here  upon  the  settlement  of  the 
long-standing  paschal  or  Easter  controversy,  which 
practically  closed  the  diversity  of  use  that  had  divided 
East  and  West  on  that  point. 

The  Meletian  quarrel  was  decided  against  the  schis- 
matics, but  it  was  no  more  dead  than  Arianism  and 
soon  revived  along  with  the  latter  to  give  more 
trouble  than  ever  to  the  church. 

The  emperor  wrote  happy  and  confident  letters  to 
Alexandria  and  to  all  the  churches,  in  which  he  de- 
clared that  the  power  of  Satan  had  been  thwarted, 
and  that  the  splendor  of  truth,  at  the  command  of 
God,  had  vanquished  the  dissensions,  schisms  and 
tumults  which  invaded  the  repose  of  the  church  and 
the  empire.  "  We  all  therefore  believe  that  there  is 
one  God  and  worship  in  his  name." 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ARIANISM   AFTER   THE   COUNCIL   OF   NIC^EA. 

HE  events  succeeding  the  Council  of 
Nicaea  are  so  complicated  and  confused 
that  it  is  difficult  to  combine  anything 
like  a  philosophical  interpretation  of  them 
with  a  detailed  narration  of  even  the 
principal  incidents.  We  shall  limit  ourselves  there- 
fore to  such  details  as  are  actually  necessary  to  indi- 
cate or  illustrate  the  onward  progress  of  the  matter 
which  we  have  in  hand,  the  evolution  of  the  doc- 
trine, as  distinguished  from  the  truth  or  fact,  of  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ. 

If  there  had  been  only  the  religious  question  reli- 
giously discussed  and  determined,  the  task  of  tracing 
its  solutions  and  definitions  would  be  comparatively 
simple  and  easy;  but  unfortunately  at  this  point 
Christianity  itself,  through  its  sudden  elevation  to 
the  position  of  the  state  religion,  becomes  hopelessly 
mixed  up  and  almost  lost  in  such  a  seething  mass  of 
political  intrigue  and  personal  and  partisan  animos- 
ity that  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  trace  the  real  issue 
through  all  to  its  safe  emergence  at  last.  And  yet, 
perhaps,  except  through  this  admixture  and  interac- 
tion with  earthly  elements  and  forces  the  heavenly 


Testimony  Prior  to  Reflection.        135 

truth  would  not  have  emerged  at  all.  God  in  many 
ways  makes  the  wrath  and  the  folly  of  men  to  praise 
him. 

If  we  should  abstract  our  attention  from  the  selfish 
and  worldly  motives  and  ends  that  identified  and 
mixed  themselves  up  with  the  very  genuine  and 
profound  Christian  thought  and  life  of  the  times, 
and  direct  it  only  to  the  religious  forces  at  work,  we 
might  describe  the  crisis  as  follows.  A  momentous 
question — the  momentous  question  of  Christianity — 
had  been  submitted  by  the  church  to  a  general  coun- 
cil and  the  council  had  decided  it.  But  the  question 
was  not  therefore  decided;  the  council  had  judged 
the  question,  it  remained  for  the  church  to  judge  the 
council.  In  a  certain  sense  it  might  be  said  that  so 
far  as  the  council  itself  was  concerned,  taken  as  a 
whole,  and  still  more  so  far  as  the  church  as  a  whole 
was  concerned,  the  action  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea 
was  not  yet  its  deliberate  judgment  and  decision. 
The  fact  is,  leaving  out  a  very  few  commanding  indi- 
viduals, for  the  church  the  council  was  the  beginning 
rather  than  the  end  of  reflection;  and  we  might 
almost  say  of  it  that  it  spoke  first  and  reflected  after- 
ward. So  far  as  the  voice  of  the  council  was  the 
voice  of  the  church — and  we  shall  see  that  it  was — 
it  was  the  first  thought  of  the  church  that  was  ex- 
pressed and  not,  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  its  sober 
second  thought.  Not  on  that  account  was  the  ver- 
dict the  less  valuable,  but  on  the  contrary  that  fact 
constituted  its  peculiar  value.  We  have  seen  to 
what  an  extent  the  faith  of  the  first  Christian  ages 
was  intuitive  and  implicit,  and  how  slow  the  great 


136  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

body  of  Christians  was  to  go  beyond  the  confession 
of  Christianity  as  an  objective  fact  of  divine  incarna- 
tion and  human  redemption,  and  to  trust  itself  to 
that  process  of  human  and  rational  reflection  which 
would  undertake  to  make  the  divine  mystery  hu- 
manly intelligible  and  expressible.  It  was  humanly 
speaking  impossible  that  the  church  could  have  been 
brought  to  utter  itself  as  it  did  at  Nicaea  without  the 
imperial  pressure,  amounting  almost  to  compulsion. 
Speaking  then  and  thus,  its  utterance  was  more  a 
testimony  or  witness  to  the  objective  fact  in  which 
it  believed  than  an  exposition  of  its  own  reflections 
upon  that  fact.  Its  great  reluctance  was  not  to 
make  a  catholic  or  universal  confession  of  the  person 
of  Christ,  but  to  confess  him  in  terms  not  revealed 
and  not  scriptural,  and  applicable  rather  to  human 
than  divine  things.  Compelled  however  thus  to 
define  the  object  of  its  faith,  it  did  so  immediately 
and  on  first  thought,  with  a  clearness,  certainty  and 
decision,  of  which  it  would  have  been  more  and 
more  incapable  the  longer  it  was  allowed  to  reason 
and  reflect.  Not  that  there  was  no  place  for  reflec- 
tion and  reason;  as  a  matter  of  fact  these,  coming 
after,  came  eventually  to  yield  a  subjective  assent 
and  confirmation  to  the  objective  testimony  borne  at 
once  and  at  first  by  the  instinctive  or  intuitive  faith 
of  the  universal  Christian  consciousness.  But  it  was 
the  peculiar  value  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea  that,  in 
the  sense  and  to  the  extent  we  have  endeavored  to 
describe,  its  decision  was  given  at  the  beginning  and 
not  at  the  end  of  the  age  of  speculative  reflection, 
which  it  introduced ;  and,  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Dorner, 


Doubt  and  Reaction.  137 

"We  shall  esteem  it  a  special  favor  of  providence 
that  the  conscience  of  the  church  was  appealed  to 
for  its  testimony  and  confession  while  it  still  retained 
its  [primitive]  certitude  and  authority ;  and  that  thus 
at  the  very  commencement  of  its  voyage,  a  beacon 
was  enkindled  to  mark  the  church's  pathway  across 
the  stormy  seas  which  lay  before  it." 

Thus  it  happened  that,  as  our  Lord  himself  coming 
to  bring  the  peace  of  God  into  the  world  brought 
at  first  not  peace  but  a  sword,  so  the  great  Nicene 
Council,  convened  to  give  unity,  introduced  a  strife 
and  discord  such  as  had  never  been  known  in  the 
church  before.  Hitherto  the  great  silent  solid  body 
of  Christian  people  was  united  without  question  by 
faith  in  facts  which  they  were  as  satisfied  should 
remain  without  and  above  them  as  children  are  sat- 
isfied not  to  understand  the  mysteries  of  birth  and 
life  and  growth.  The  church  had  instinctively  de- 
tected and  rejected  whatever  was  inconsistent  with 
its  faith  and  life,  but  doctrinal  investigation  and 
speculation,  all  that  we  would  now  call  theology, 
was,  as  we  have  said,  confined  to  very  few  and  was 
viewed  with  distrust  as  tending  to  disturb  and  darken 
the  simplicity  of  a  faith  the  truth  of  which  lay  in  the 
fact  of  things  without  us  and  not  in  any  reasonings 
and  deductions  of  our  own.  Now  of  a  sudden,  and 
unexpectedly  to  the  great  mass  of  them,  the  simple 
pastors  of  simple  flocks  were  brought  together  from 
the  ends  of  the  earth  and  made  to  give  in  language 
above  their  comprehension  a  scientific  or  philosoph- 
ical reason  for  the  faith  that  was  in  them.  Made  to 
give  their  verdict  as  judges,  they  instinctively  raised 


138  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

their  voices  and  closed  their  ears  against  every  form 
of  open  or  covert  attack  upon  the  true  divinity  of 
their  Lord,  and  so  bore  their  testimony  to  the  com- 
mon faith.  Their  spiritual  sense  had  not  lost  its 
delicacy  through  too  much  thought  and  too  little 
life ;  they  felt  intuitively  that  the  Athanasian  posi- 
tion was  true  to  their  religious  wants  and  their 
Christian  experience,  as  well  as  to  the  Scriptures 
and  the  catholic  tradition  as  they  knew  it;  and  so 
they  gave  their  adhesion  to  it  and  in  the  certainty 
of  their  first  and  fresh  convictions  rejoiced  to  feel 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  had  spoken  through  them. 
Even  in  the  council,  however,  they  had  not  been 
brought  up  to  this  point  without  doubts  and  qualms, 
without  hesitation  and  reluctance.  Their  faith  with- 
out knowledge  had  led  them,  and  they  had  followed 
it  like  Abraham  not  knowing  whither  they  went. 
And  when  the  jubilation  and  enthusiasm  over  what 
they  had  done  was  over  and  their  elation  had  grown 
cold,  and  their  subtle  and  fine  formulae  and  defini- 
tions came  to  be  discussed  and  criticised  over  again 
apart  from  the  explanations  which  had  made  them 
sound  so  true,  they  were  by  no  means  as  sure  as  they 
had  been  of  the  truth  and  value  of  their  action. 

It  is  certainly  only  in  this  way  that  we  can  explain 
the  almost  universal  and  for  a  long  time  apparently 
hopeless  reaction  that  set  against  the  council  soon 
after  its  triumphant  adjournment.  It  affected  the 
mind  of  the  emperor  himself  and  wrecked  all  the 
shallow  hopes  he  had  built  upon  the  sand  of  his 
superficial  acquaintance  with  the  divine  workings 
of  Christianity.  And  alone,  or  almost  alone,  and 


Action  of  the  Different  Parties.       139 

against  odds  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  measure, 
the  great  Athanasius  set  himself  resolutely  and  pa- 
tiently to  the  task  that  was  to  take  as  many  years  as 
the  other  had  taken  days,  of  bringing  the  church  as 
he  had  brought  the  council  up  to  a  comprehension 
and  knowledge  of  itself.  In  the  church  as  in  every 
individual  the  passage  from  intuitive  faith  to  rational 
knowledge  is  a  difficult,  painful  and  dangerous  one. 
Its  path  is  through  thought  and  doubt  back  to  truth 
and  certainty,  and  it  is  not  all  who  return  again  in 
safety  to  the  haven  of  faith  from  which  they  started. 
We  shall  see  how  the  church  passed  through  it,  and 
we  shall  not  pause  to  count  the  sad  failures,  the 
faithless  and  shameful  disloyalties  and  defections  by 
the  way. 

But,  as  we  have  said,  the  question  of  the  religious 
progress  of  the  church's  thought  was  complicated 
with  many  others  of  which  it  is  necessary  to  take 
account.  We  must  remember  that  during  the  time 
when  the  imperial  policy  toward  Christianity  was 
turning  from  persecution  to  patronage  and  men  had 
everything  to  gain  instead  of  everything  to  lose  by 
becoming  Christians,  the  immediate  effect  had  been 
to  convert  the  church  from  a  purely  religious  to  a 
very  largely  secular  and  political  body.  We  shall 
expect  therefore  to  find  in  even  its  highest  places 
self-seekers,  schemers  and  politicians  as  well  as  the- 
ologians, scholars  and  saints.  Of  the  latter,  in  all 
three  characters,  unquestionably  the  highest  type 
was  Athanasius;  and  perhaps  the  various  complica- 
tions that  distracted  and  impeded  the  church  may 
best  be  studied  by  considering  them  successively 


140  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

in  their  relation  to  him  as  its  representative.  We 
shall  therefore,  referring  to  him  as  a  standard,  pass 
consecutively  in  review  the  subsequent  conduct  of 
the  several  parties  which  had  taken  part  in  the  pro- 
ceedings and  almost  all  united  in  the  conclusions  of 
the  Nicene  Council;  and  we  shall  begin  with  the 
inner  circle  of  the  Homoousians  themselves,  those 
who  had  acted  most  closely  with  Athanasius,  and 
proceed  from  within  outward. 

The  council  over,  and  the  larger  task  begun  of 
passing  its  decisions  through  the  test  of  the  universal 
judgment,  many  of  those  most  closely  identified  with 
Athanasius,  who  had  most  distinguished  themselves 
in  the  battle  for  the  homoousion,  failed  him  in  just 
the  way  to  be  the  source  of  the  greatest  weak- 
ness instead  of  strength  in  the  further  trials  of  the 
truth.  A  single  instance  will  illustrate  how  this 
not  unnaturally  came  about.  It  had  been  felt  and 
conceded  by  some  of  their  strongest  advocates  that 
there  was  danger  lurking  in  the  terms  and  phrases 
employed  to  define  and  defend  the  truth.  Many 
sound  but  conservative  and  timid  members  had 
been  reluctant  to  sign  the  definitions  on  account  of 
perilous  ambiguities  to  which  attention  had  been 
called  in  the  debates.  That  the  danger  was  a  real 
one  was  soon  to  be  demonstrated  by  perhaps  many 
more  instances  than  the  conspicuous  one  we  are 
about  to  give.  None  of  the  bishops  in  the  council 
had  been  more  forward  or  useful  in  defence  of  our 
Lord's  person  against  the  Arians  than  Marcellus  of 
Ancyra  in  Asia  Minor.  Yet  it  was  not  long  after 
before  he  was  convicted  of  holding  the  homoousion 


The  Conservatives.  141 

itself  in  just  that  Sabellian  sense  of  which  the  coun- 
cil had  been  afraid,  and  which  it  had  charged  as  an 
objection  against  the  term.  Worse  than  that,  tried 
and  clearly  convicted  by  one  side  in  the  subsequent 
controversy,  he  was  defended  and  protected  by  the 
other  side,  including  the  see  of  Rome,  because  of  his 
services  in  the  council ;  and  it  was  years  before  his 
friends  were  forced  by  his  conduct  to  give  up  his 
cause  as  a  bad  one.  The  effect  of  such  cases  could 
not  but  revive  and  deepen  the  distrust  of  the  deci- 
sions which  the  Athanasians  had  found  so  much  diffi- 
culty in  overcoming  in  the  council. 

When  we  pass  from  the  inner  circle  of  the  Atha- 
nasians to  the  very  large  next  outer  one  of  the  great 
body  of  conservatives,  who  were  at  bottom  opposed 
to  the  idea  of  a  universal  test  at  all,  who  thoroughly 
distrusted  and  feared  the  application  of  scientific 
methods  and  language  to  the  definition  of  divine 
mysteries,  and  who  in  particular  objected  to  the 
special  terms  insisted  on  by  the  Athanasians,  but 
who  having  to  define  could  find  no  better  or  other 
terms  in  which  to  do  so  and  so  had  conformed, — 
we  shall  of  course  not  be  surprised  to  find  these  re- 
viving their  scruples  and  fears,  and  becoming  more 
confirmed  in  them  and  doubtful  of  their  previous 
compliance,  especially  as  these  fears  were  most  art- 
fully and  skilfully  played  upon  by  the  real  anti- 
Nicene  party.  The  leaders  of  the  orthodox  conser- 
vatives were  in  addition  unfortunately  all  more  or  less 
prejudiced  against  Alexander  and  Athanasius.  They 
did  not  appreciate  the  depth  and  danger  of  the  Arian 
heresy  and  had  never  sympathized  with  what  they 


142  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

regarded,  in  the  length  to  which  it  was  carried,  as 
persecution  of  Arius.  With  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  at 
their  head,  as  before  the  council  so  after  it  when  the 
personal  contentions  were  revived  they  found  them- 
selves, without  being  Arians,  on  the  side  of  Arius 
and  the  Arians  and  arrayed  against  Athanasius. 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  the  historian  of  the  church, 
was  without  question  the  most  learned  man  of  the 
age.  In  all  his  voluminous  literary  and  religious 
productions  nothing  has  been  discovered  to  convict 
him  of  unsoundness  or  lukewarmness  in  the  faith. 
The  worst  that  could  be  charged  against  him  was 
that  he  was  liberal  or  latitudinarian  in  his  judgment 
of  the  doctrinal  differences  of  others;  he  was  not 
warm  or  strong  enough  on  the  side  of  the  truth  as 
it  was  then  assailed  and  at  stake,  and  was  opposed 
to  ecclesiastical  prosecutions  for  heresy.  Even  this 
charge  has  been  met  by  extracts  from  his  works  de- 
nouncing in  turn  every  heresy  of  his  day  in  terms  to 
which  there  is  nothing  lacking  of  emphasis  or  point. 
That  however  was  his  general  character,  and  it  is 
charitable  to  suppose  that  it  was  a  constitutional 
opposition  to  what  to  one  of  his  temperament  seemed 
the  uncompromising  and  persecuting  orthodoxy  of 
Athanasius  that  ranged  him  among  the  persistent 
enemies  of  the  latter.  Certain  it  is  that  in  the  long 
series  of  prosecutions  aimed  by  Arians  and  Arian 
sympathizers  against  their  one  unanswerable  and  in- 
vincible foe  Eusebius  was  always  in  the  ranks  of  the 
prosecutors;  and  at  the  very  inception  of  the  long 
and  fierce  attempt  of  his  enemies  to  crush  him, 
Athanasius  disobeyed  the  summons  of  the  emperor 


Objections  to  the  " Homoousion"      143 

to  defend  himself  before  a  council  to  be  held  at  Cae- 
sarea,  on  the  ground  that  the  prejudice  of  its  bishop 
precluded  the  hope  of  a  just  trial  at  that  place. 
With  such  leaders,  there  is  no  question  that  there  was 
after  the  council  a  large  party  of  practically  orthodox 
bishops  who  were  more  or  less  dissatisfied  with  its  re- 
sults and  opposed  to  their  further  carrying  out  under 
the  indomitable  and  determined  lead  of  Athanasius. 

Apart  from  these  personal  feelings  and  motives, 
we  have  at  this  point  to  take  up  the  real  objections 
of  the  conservative  party,  waived  at  Nicaea  but  now 
revived  and  emphasized,  not  merely  to  the  general 
principle  of  the  scientific  definition  of  spiritual  mys- 
teries, but  to  the  principal  terms,  or  we  may  say  to  the 
particular  term,  employed  in  the  Nicene  definition. 

The  first  objection  to  the  homoousion,  that  the 
term  was  not  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  and  that 
revealed  mysteries  should  be  expressed  only  in  the 
language  of  revelation,  had  been  met  by  the  rejoin- 
der that  neither  were  other  explanatory  phrases,  the 
Arian  ones  e.g.,  "out  of  nothing,"  "there  was  once 
when  he  was  not,"  etc.,  in  the  Scriptures.  This  had 
weighed  with  Eusebius,  and  in  his  report  to  his 
church  of  his  part  in  the  council  he  says  that  it  had 
influenced  him  to  join  in  the  condemnation  of  Arian- 
ism.  But  if  Arianism  had  been  condemned  on  that 
ground,  as  by  many  it  was  and  not  for  deeper  rea- 
sons, then  the  rejoinder  of  the  church  was  met  and 
the  objection  remained  to  the  language  of  the  creed. 
And  there  is  no  question  that  with  the  great  mass  of 
conservatives  this  objection  weighed  and  continued 
long  to  weigh  very  heavily. 


144  The  Ecumenical  Councils, 

The  second  objection  was  perhaps  even  greater. 
The  term  was  not  only  unscriptural,  it  was  uncath- 
olic  and  indeed  anticatholic ;  that  is,  it  had  been 
distinctly  repudiated  by  the  church  as  unsound.  It 
seems  that  there  was  evidence  that  the  great  Origen 
had  described  the  Son  as  homoousion  with  the 
Father,  and  Tertullian,  in  Latin,  had  used  an  equiv- 
alent expression ;  and  it  might  have  grown  naturally 
and  of  itself  into  orthodox  and  catholic  use.  But 
subsequently  Paul  of  Samosata  had  brought  the 
term  into  discredit  by  using  it  in  a  sense  which  led 
the  Council  of  Antioch  to  repudiate  it  in  condemn- 
ing him.  Then  even  the  theologians  of  Alexandria 
who  succeeded  Origen  had,  in  their  long  fight  with 
Sabellianism,  come  to  distrust  the  word  because,  in 
the  vagueness  of  its  meaning,  it  had  been  used  in 
the  Sabellian  sense  to  imply  the  identity  of  the  Son 
with  the  Father  in  person  as  well  as  in  essence  or 
nature.  There  was  room  therefore  for  the  charge 
that  it  was  opposed  to  the  catholic  mind  of  the 
church;  and  this  to  very  many  was  confirmed  by 
the  exposure  in  the  person  of  Marcellus  of  the  fact 
that  some  at  least — and  they  could  not  know  how 
many — of  the  very  theologians  who  had  imposed 
the  homoousion  upon  the  council  were  not  free  from 
the  Sabellian  taint  which  the  church  had  feared. 
Indeed  Marcellus,  and  more  openly  his  greater  disci- 
ple Photius,  were  guilty  of  a  Sabellianism  which  logi- 
cally resulted  in  the  apparently  opposite  heresy  of 
Paul  of  Samosata.  Denying  any  real  personal  dis- 
tinctions in  the  Trinity,  they  ended  not  in  the  one 
logical  consequence  of  Patripassianism,  but  in  the 


Force  of  the  ^Homoousion"          145 

other  which  remained  open  to  them — the  notion  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  the  incarnation  not  of  the  Godhead, 
or  the  Father,  but  only  of  a  "  manifestation  "  of  the 
Father.  This  amounted  to  nothing  more  than  the 
incarnation  of  a  divine  "  virtue  "  of  Paul  of  Samosata, 
and  both  alike  ended  in  a  sort  of  higher  Ebionism. 

It  has  been  seen  that  Athanasius  himself  had  felt 
all  these  objections  to  the  homoousion  and  realized 
that  the  word  had  to  be  purged  from  its  impure 
associations,  and  conventionally  separated  to  its 
catholic  meaning  and  use,  before  it  could  become 
the  true  watchword  of  the  church.  It  was  simply 
not  so  much  the  best  as  the  least  objectionable  and 
the  most  effective  word  that  could  be  found ;  and  he 
foresaw  that  it  would  work  its  way  into  definiteness 
and  purity  of  use  and  meaning,  and  so  into  universal 
favor  and  acceptance. 

It  is  interesting  to  trace  Athanasius's  own  estimate 
of  the  meaning  and  value  of  the  homoousion.  Al- 
ways understanding  it  in  the  sense  which  was  to 
become  that  of  the  church,  he  was  not  unnaturally 
disposed  to  find  in  it  both  expression  of  truth  and 
exclusion  of  error  more  than  properly  belonged  to  it. 
Thus,  at  one  time  at  least,  he  interpreted  it  as  includ- 
ing in  its  predication  of  the  Son  not  only  sameness 
of  essence  with  the  Father  but  also  inseparateness  of 
essence  from  that  of  the  Father.  This  would  remove 
a  real  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  whole  attempt  at 
definition.  It  was  said  that  the  Son  was  of  the  same 
substance  with  the  Father;  so  it  might  be  said  that 
one  man  was  of  the  same  substance  with  another 
man,  or  one  coin  with  another  coin ;  was  that  all  that 


146  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

was  meant?  No;  something  more  is  meant  in  the 
divine  relationship  than  in  the  other  two.  While  a 
human  son  is  of  the  same  substance  with  his  father, 
there  is  a  separation  or  division  of  their  substances ; 
they  are  different  and  distinct  not  only  persons  but 
portions  of  the  common  nature  or  substance  of  hu- 
manity. Two  coins  of  a  common  substance  are 
distinct  not  only  as  individual  pieces  but  as  separated 
portions  of  the  same  material.  It  is  not  intended  to 
be  so  represented  in  the  Godhead,  as  though  the 
different  persons  of  the  Trinity  were  separate  por- 
tions of  the  common  divine  essence  or  substance, 
outside  of  and  apart  from  or  side  by  side  with  one 
another.  The  substance  of  the  Godhead  is  not  di- 
vided into  a  number  of  individuals  but  is  one  and 
indivisible;  and  in  the  one  personally  differentiated 
but  essentially  undivided  Godhead  we  recognize  and 
distinguish  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  So  to 
Athanasius  the  homoousion  expressed  not  merely 
sameness  or  likeness,  but  undivided  and  unbroken 
unity  of  "ousia"  or  essence ;  the  Son,  distinguished  as 
Logos  or  Son,  is  undistinguished  as  God,  from  the 
Father.  He  has  no  being  apart  from  the  common 
one  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  but  only 
that  distinct  and  individual  mode  of  being  which  the 
church  discriminates  as  hypostasis  or  personality,  and 
which  enables  us  to  distinguish  his  proper  function 
and  operations  in  the  Godhead.  In  a  sense  which  is 
true  of  no  other  distinct  persons — because  all  others 
are  not  only  distinct  but  separate — the  Father  is 
always  in  the  Son  and  the  Son  in  the  Father,  and 
neither  can  be  nor  be  thought  apart  or  separate  from 


Meaning  of  "Substance"  147 

the  other;  what  the  Son  does  the  Father  does,  and 
each  is  what  in  distinction  he  is  only  in  and  through 
the  other.  When,  later,  the  Semi-Arian  party 
thought  to  find  in  the  other  term  "  homoiousion  " — of 
like,  instead  of  same,  nature — an  escape  from  the 
possible  Sabellian  sense  of  the  homoousion,  the  ar- 
gument which  prevailed  against  the  substitution  was 
this  difference  between  the  two  terms,  that  the  for- 
mer meant  just  that  which  it  was  the  merit  and 
value  of  the  latter  that  it  excluded.  It  was  proper 
to  say  of  two  coins  or  of  two  men  that  they  were  of 
like  or  similar  substance,  but  not  of  the  persons  of 
the  Godhead ;  for  the  term  implies  that  while  in  one 
sense  they  are  the  same,  in  another  sense  they  are 
not  the  same  substance,  but  different  and  separated 
parts  of  the  same.  This,  it  was  contended,  is  pro- 
vided against  in  the  homoousion,  which  means  not 
only  that  the  substance  is  one  in  Father  and  Son 
but  that  they  are  not  different  parts  or  portions  of 
the  one  divine  substance. 

This  little  discussion  will  introduce  and  illustrate 
yet  another  objection  on  the  part  of  the  conserva- 
tives to  the  Nicene  terms,  which  was  that  they  were 
too  physical  or  material  to  be  applicable  to  spiritual 
and  divine  things.  The  application  of  such  a  term 
as  "  substance  "  to  God  seems  to  imply  a  sort  of  stuff 
or  material  of  which  he  is  formed.  This  of  course  is 
not  as  true  of  the  Greek  onsia  as  it  is  of  the  Latin 
substantia,  but  it  is  still  liable  to  the  charge  and  it 
was  no  insignificant  additional  difficulty  with  which 
the  Athanasians  had  to  contend.  By  essence  or  sub- 
stance in  this  connection  is  meant  simply  that  which 


148  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

a  thing  is,  that  which  constitutes  and  defines  it;  in 
which  sense  it  may  just  as  well  be  applied  to  the 
most  spiritual  as  to  the  most  material  of  subjects. 
That  the  Son  is  of  the  essence  or  substance  of  the 
Father  means  that  he  is  really  God;  that  he  pos- 
sesses all  the  attributes  and  properties  that  belong  to 
the  concept  and  to  the  reality  of  Godhead. 

We  come  however  to  the  real  springs  and  causes 
of  the  indescribable  troubles  of  the  period  when  we 
pass  from  the  great  mass  of  mere  obstructive  con- 
servatism in  the  church  to  the  outer  circle  of  real 
Arianism,  ^which  having  survived  its  defeat  and  con- 
demnation in  the  council  began  at  once  and  with  the 
most  far-reaching  policy  to  organize  victory  for  itself 
in  a  much  wider  arena  and  upon  a  far  larger  scale. 
The  Arians  had  measured  their  strength  and  discov- 
ered their  weakness ;  they  were  in  a  hopeless  minor- 
ity, in  an  opposition  which  could  not  secure  even  a 
hearing  in  any  representative  assembly  of  the  whole 
church.  Moreover  the  emperor  was  committed 
against  them ;  he  had  so  associated  the  great  coun- 
cil with  himself  and  invested  himself  in  the  glory  of 
it,  that  they  had  no  hope  of  reversing  its  decisions 
in  his  lifetime.  Adapting  their  policy  to  their  cir- 
cumstances, they  withdrew  from  the  frankness  and 
boldness  upon  which  they  had  too  confidently  relied ; 
and  having  given  in  their  adhesion  to  the  letter  of 
the  Nicene  Confession,  they  proceeded  to  evade  and 
pervert  its  spirit  and  undermine  and  destroy  its 
credit.  Forming  no  party  of  their  own,  they  merged 
and  concealed  themselves  in  the  great  body  of  the 
doubtful  and  dissatisfied  conservatives,  and  set  them- 


Policy  of  the  Arians.  149 

selves  to  the  task  of  fostering  their  doubts  and  fan- 
ning the  flame  of  their  dissatisfaction.  So  that,  as 
we  have  seen,  a  large  part  of  the  reaction  which  set 
in  against  the  council  and  of  the  opposition  to  Atha- 
nasius  himself  came  from,  or  at  least  through,  those 
who  were  if  they  only  knew  it  at  one  with  it  and  him 
and  in  no  real  unity  with  those  at  whose  instigation 
they  were  acting.  In  the  next  place  the  Arians  set 
themselves  not  indeed  to  convert  the  emperor  but 
to  win  him  over  to  at  least  a  policy  of  personal  toler- 
ance and  doctrinal  indifference.  The  moderate  Euse- 
bius  of  Cassarea,  who  had  no  sympathy  with  the 
positiveness  and  decision  with  which  Athanasius  had 
carried  things,  was  always  of  influence  with  the  em- 
peror, whom  he  extravagantly  admired  and  flattered 
and  whom  he  no  doubt  affected  with  his  own  latitu- 
dinaria.nism.  But  more  than  this  Eusebius  of  Nico- 
media,  which  was  before  Constantinople  the  chief 
seat  of  the  imperial  court,  had  been  the  spiritual 
adviser  of  Constantia,  widow  of  Licinius  and  sister  of 
Constantine;  and  through  her  the  Arians  reached 
the  ears t of  Constantine  and  won  him  over  so  far  as 
to  convince  him  that  by  far  too  much  had  been  made 
of  the  errors  of  Arius  and  Eusebius,  and  that  he 
himself  had  through  misrepresentations  been  carried 
too  far  in  his  severity  against  them.  By  degrees 
he  not  only  mitigated  his  own  harshness  but  even 
brought  official  pressure  to  bear  upon  Athanasius 
himself  to  restore  Arius  and  to  receive  back  into 
communion  all  who  were  willing  to  come.  Atha- 
nasius could  not  be  coerced,  and  the  Arians  were  not 
long  in  discovering  that  nothing  was  to  be  accom- 


150  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

plished  by  them  without  his  destruction.  A  series 
of  councils  having  this  end  in  view  sat  successively 
in  Caesarea,  Tyre,  Jerusalem  and  Constantinople. 
Consisting  mainly  of  conservatives,  they  were  in- 
spired and  controlled  by  the  Arian  leaders,  who 
succeeded  finally  in  restoring  Arius  and  procuring 
the  banishment  of  Athanasius.  From  this  time  on 
Constantine,  while  still  maintaining  the  Nicene  de- 
cisions, was  practically  associated  with  the  Arian 
party  and,  as  we  have  seen,  received  the  last  offices 
of  religion  from  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia. 

To  their  duplicity  and  gradual  ascendency  over 
the  mind  of  the  emperor  the  Arians  added  a  third 
line  of  policy  which  was  carried  out  with  an  unscru- 
pulous and  unrelenting  persistency  that  seems  now 
inconceivable  and  incredible.  This  was  to  destroy 
Nicenism  gradually  by  the  personal  overthrow  and 
ruin  of  its  chief  representatives  and  advocates ;  a 
scheme  in  which  they  all  but  succeeded  and  hu- 
manly speaking  brought  the  truth  to  the  very  point 
of  utter  extinction.  Nothing  indeed  seemed  to  save 
it  but  the  superhuman  vitality,  indomitablejiess  and 
faithfulness  of  one  man. 

They  began  with  Eustathius,  patriarch  of  Antioch, 
one  of  the  presidents  and  a  distinguished  leader  in 
the  council.  They  found  no  great  difficulty  in  depos- 
ing him,  and  set  up  a  successor;  but  their  action 
created  a  schism  in  the  capital  of  the  East  which 
lasted  through  the  century  and  was  the  source  of 
endless  confusion  and  trouble. 

Unfortunately,  as  we  have  seen,  Marcellus  of  An- 
cyra  was  fair  game  and  not  only  furnished  a  text  for 


Attempt  to  Destroy  Athanasius.      151 

the  crusade  against  the  alleged  Sabellianism  and  even 
Samosatenism  of  the  council,  but  rallied  a  large  fol- 
lowing of  orthodox  conservatives  under  the  banner 
of  the  Eusebians  and  gave  a  plausible  excuse  for 
further  prosecutions.  And  it  did  not  help  matters 
that  the  Athanasians  unwisely  defended  Marcellus, 
and  that  in  Rome  itself  he  was  never  formally  ex- 
cluded from  communion. 

But  Athanasius  was  their  rock  of  offence,  upon 
which  they  beat  in  vain  for  nearly  fifty  years  until 
they  broke  themselves  to  pieces.  Within  a  year  after 
the  council  Alexander  died  and  Athanasius  succeeded 
him  in  the  patriarchate  of  Alexandria,  against  the 
fierce  opposition  of  a  still  powerful  Arian  and  Mele- 
tian  influence,  which  was  thenceforth  at  the  ser- 
vice of  the  Eusebian  machinations  and  ready  at  any 
time  to  manufacture  whatever  testimony  was  needed 
against  either  his  public  administration  or  his  private 
character.  There  was  never  any  attempt  as  in  the 
case  of  the  others  to  bring  doctrinal  charges  against 
Athanasius ;  they  knew  him  of  old,  and  besides  this 
would  have  been  to  impeach  the  Nicene  Council 
itself,  which  no  one  was  prepared  publicly  to  do.  The 
ground  for  beginning  proceedings  against  him  was 
his  contumacy  in  disobeying  the  imperial  command, 
"  On  pain  of  removal  from  his  see,  to  receive  to 
communion  any  who  desired  it,"  and  general  al- 
leged acts  of  ecclesiastical  and  official  tyranny  and 
severity.  But  these  grew  rapidly  into  personal 
charges  against  him,  so  monstrous  and  ridiculous,  so 
abundantly  disproved  and  persistently  revived  and 
reiterated,  so  absurdly  unworthy  of  the  least  histori- 


152  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

cal  consideration,  that  nothing  can  explain  them  but 
the  supposition  that,  once  involved  in  their  crusade 
against  him,  it  was  a  matter  of  life  and  death  with 
his  enemies  to  carry  it  through  successfully. 

From  Csesarea,  whose  learned  bishop  we  have  seen 
in  the  thick  of  the  fight  against  him,  to  Tyre,  whence 
not  awaiting  the  foregone  conclusion  of  his  condem- 
nation he  suddenly  took  ship  and  left  the  council,  to 
face  the  emperor  himself  and  demand  justice  of  him ; 
from  Tyre  to  Jerusalem,  where  Arius  on  new  and 
amended  representations  of  his  views  was  pronounced 
orthodox;  from  Jerusalem  to  Constantinople,  where 
all  parties  were  summoned  by  the  emperor  to  appear 
before  himself,  the  case  dragged  on  from  year  to  year. 
Finally  when  all  the  charges  were  about  to  be  dis- 
missed by  the  emperor  as  frivolous  and  malicious,  the 
new  one  was  suddenly  brought  forward  of  his  having 
threatened  to  distress  Constantinople  by  delaying  the 
sailing  of  the  corn  ships  from  Alexandria.  Either 
because  this  was  too  serious  and  dangerous  a  power 
for  any  individual  to  be  even  charged  with  possess- 
ing, or  else  because  the  emperor  was  hopeless  of  put- 
ting any  other  termination  to  the  endless  proceedings, 
Athanasius  was  banished  to  Treves  in  Germany.  It 
was  soon  after  this  that  Arius  presented  himself  again 
before  the  emperor  in  person  and  succeeded  in  convinc- 
ing him  of  his  orthodoxy.  Constantine  commanded 
that  he  should  be  publicly  admitted  to  communion 
on  a  set  occasion,  but  on  his  progress  to  the  cathedral 
for  that  purpose  Arius  was  seized  with  a  shocking 
disease  which  in  a  few  hours  terminated  his  life. 

Soon  after  this  first  banishment  of  Athanasius  the 


Athanasius  in  Exile.  153 

Emperor  Constantine  died,  A.D.  337.  The  empire 
fell  to  his  three  sons,  Constantine  II.  taking  the 
West,  Constantius  the  East,  and  Constans  the  centre. 
The  elder  and  younger  emperors  were  favorable  to 
the  catholic  faith,  and  both  at  long  intervals  had  the 
opportunity  of  serving  it  effectually  in  the  person  of 
Athanasius.  But  Constantius,  who  ruled  all  the  area 
covered  by  the  Arian  troubles,  was  himself  wholly 
under  Arian  influence,  and  from  his  accession  we  may 
date  a  bolder  and  more  open  aggressiveness  against 
the  principles  and  the  representatives  of  the  Nicene 
faith.  Athanasius  indeed  through  the  influence  of 
Constantine  II.,  whose  admiration  and  friendship  he 
had  won  in  his  banishment  to  the  West,  was  restored 
to  his  see  at  the  close  of  A.D.  338.  But  in  the  mean- 
time his  arch-enemy  Eusebius  had  been  translated 
from  Nicomedia  to  Constantinople  in  place  of  the 
orthodox  Paul,  and  more  vigorous  measures  were  in 
preparation  against  him.  By  Easter  of  340  he  was 
in  his  second  exile,  this  time  in  Rome  where  he  was 
kindly  received  by  the  bishop,  Julius ;  and  in  his  see 
the  Arian  George  of  Cappadocia  had  been  intruded 
with  bitter  persecution  of  the  catholics. 

After  the  failure  of  repeated  attempts  by  Julius  to  as- 
semble a  council  at  Rome  where  Athanasius  might  have 
an  impartial  hearing,  the  Eusebians,  who  in  spite  of 
many  promises  could  never  be  enticed  thither,  took  oc- 
casion upon  the  consecration  of  "  the  Golden  Church," 
a  new  cathedral  at  Antioch,  to  assemble  the  ninety- 
seven  bishops  present  and  constitute  a  council.  This 
was  in  August,  341,  and  the  council  made  up  largely 
of  conservatives  adopted  a  creed  orthodox  in  sub- 


154  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

stance  but  omitting  the  homoousion,  and  reaffirmed 
the  action  of  Tyre  in  condemnation  of  Athanasius. 

Somewhat  later  Julius  of  Rome,  despairing  of  the 
appearance  of  the  Eusebians  but  ignorant  of  their 
action  at  Antioch,  assembled  a  council  which  declared 
Athanasius  innocent,  but  unfortunately  also  pro- 
nounced Marcellus  on  his  own  representation  of  his 
views  orthodox.  Before  this,  in  340,  Constantine  II. 
had  been  killed  in  an  unwarrantable  invasion  of  his 
brother  Constans's  dominions.  Nevertheless,  Con- 
stans  sharing  his  brother's  favorable  disposition  to- 
ward Athanasius  used  his  influence  as  the  other  had 
in  his  favor;  and  by  the  end  of  343  bishops  from 
East  and  West  were  assembled  at  Sardica,  the  capi- 
tal of  Moesia,  to  review  and  pass  judgment  upon  the 
whole  situation.  But  the  council  came  to  no  practi- 
cal result  in  uniting  the  two  sections  of  the  church. 
The  Eusebians  were  bent  on  treating  Athanasius  as 
already  judged  and  condemned  and  refused  to  sit  in 
the  council  with  him.  The  Western  bishops  were 
unwilling  to  recognize  the  proceedings  by  which  this 
result  had  been  reached,  but  were  willing  to  listen 
de  novo  to  all  the  evidence  against  him  and  decide 
the  case  impartially  on  its  merits.  The  Eusebians 
finding  themselves  slightly  in  the  minority  withdrew 
to  Philippopolis  where  they  organized  a  council  and 
confirmed  the  condemnation  of  Athanasius.  The  re- 
duced council  at  Sardica  pronounced  him  innocent, 
recognized  the  Nicene  Symbol  as  the  faith  of  the 
church,  excommunicated  a  number  of  Eusebian  bish- 
ops, and  wrote  letters  of  sympathy  to  the  catholics 
of  Alexandria  and  Egypt. 


Violence  of  Constantius.  155 

Matters  were  thus  further  apart  than  ever.  In  the 
East,  Constantius  and  his  Arian  advisers  were  pro- 
voked to  harsher  methods  and  orders  were  issued 
that  Athanasius  and  his  adherents  should  be  put  to 
death  if  they  returned  to  Alexandria.  But  messengers 
were  sent  from  Constans  and  from  the  council  in  Sar- 
dica  to  Constantius  in  Antioch ;  and  fortunately,  a  fit 
of  honest  and  just  disgust  on  the  occasion  of  their 
reception  with  the  methods  of  his  Arian  friends  in 
the  city,  the  convenient  and  timely  death  of  the  in- 
truder Gregory  at  Alexandria,  the  pressure  of  his 
Persian  war,  and  the  influence  and  threats  of  Constans 
combined  to  move  Constantius  to  a  brief  interval  of 
tolerance  and  even  kindness  toward  the  catholics 
of  Egypt.  The  return  and  welcome  of  Athanasius 
in  the  fall  of  346  from  his  second  exile  was  the  occa- 
sion of  a  spontaneous  and  popular  demonstration 
which  was  long  the  great  historical  type  and  standard 
of  such  events.  The  next  few  years  were  a  period 
of  great  peace,  but  in  350  the  Emperor  Constans  lost 
his  life  in  the  revolt  of  Magnentius.  Constantius  was 
for  several  years  engaged  in  putting  down  a  succes- 
sion of  rebellions  in  the  West,  at  the  end  of  which  he 
found  himself  sole  master  of  the  Roman  world.  Then 
his  entire  character  came  out  and  he  set  himself  to 
the  task  of  forcing  Arianism  upon  the  empire.  "  His 
will,"  he  declared,  "  should  serve  the  Westerns  for  a 
canon  as  it  had  served  the  Syrians."  In  the  Council 
of  Aries,  353,  and  Milan,  355,  he  personally  forced 
the  condemnation  of  Athanasius  upon  the  assembled 
bishops  by  the  imprisonment  or  banishment  of  all  who 
resisted.  In  3  5  6  officers  of  the  empire  formally  handed 


156  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

over  all  the  churches  in  Alexandria  to  the  Arians. 
The  aged  Hosius  now  nearly  one  hundred  years  old, 
after  so  long  a  life  of  faithfulness  to  the  truth,  was 
forced  by  imprisonment  and  torture  into  signing  an 
Arian  creed.  And  Liberius,  bishop  of  Rome,  was 
released  from  the  irksomeness  and  hopelessness  of 
exile  by  submission  to  the  same  shameful  condition. 
At  Ariminum  or  Rimini  in  the  year  359,  the  political 
bishops  succeeded,  by  guile  as  well  as  force,  in  im- 
posing upon  the  West  a  creed  omitting  the  homoou- 
sion  (the  third  of  Sirmium),  which  Constantius  then 
undertook  to  make  the  creed  of  the  whole  church.  It 
was  of  this  council  that  St.  Jerome  gave  his  famous 
summary  :  "  Ingemuit  totus  orbis,  et  Arianum  se  esse 
miratus  est." 

During  this  time  Athanasius,  his  seat  in  Alexan- 
dria occupied  by  George  the  Cappadocian,  his  flock 
persecuted  and  scattered,  his  life  sought  and  only 
preserved  from  his  enemies  by  a  series  of  hairbreadth 
and  sometimes  romantic  escapes,  was  now  in  flight 
in  the  desert,  now  in  hiding  among  his  faithful  friends 
the  hermits  of  the  Thebaid,  now  in  disguise  among 
his  people,  sometimes  in  Alexandria  itself ;  but  never 
despondent  about  himself  or  in  despair  of  the  ultimate 
success  of  the  truth  he  was  in  the  midst  of  such  a 
life  incessantly  busy  in  defence  of  the  faith,  and  pro- 
duced one  after  another  those  treatises  which  contrib- 
uted mainly  to  its  final  triumph  and  have  been  ever 
since  an  armory  of  weapons  in  its  defence. 

At  last  in  the  winter  of  361  Constantius  died  and 
was  succeeded  by  his  cousin  Julian.  Julian  had  been 
educated  under  the  tutelage  of  Eusebius  of  Nicome- 


Julian,  Jovian  and  Valens.  157 

dia,  but  not  without  reason  had  revolted  from  the 
religion  of  his  predecessor,  whose  character  he  justly 
despised,  and  had  apostatized  to  paganism,  to  the  re- 
vival of  which  he  devoted  much  of  the  interest  and 
energy  of  his  brief  reign.  The  policy  of  Julian  to- 
ward Christianity  was  one  of  complete  toleration, 
looking  more  for  its  extinction  by  internal  dissensions 
than  by  outward  persecution.  From  this  a  sole  ex- 
ception seems  to  have  been  made  of  Athanasius,  who 
after  a  brief  return  to  his  see  was  again  banished, 
with  a  threat  of  something  worse  if  he  should  attempt 
to  return.  Julian  however  was  killed  in  a  campaign 
against  the  Persians  in  the  summer  of  363,  and  was 
succeeded  by  the  Christian  and  orthodox  Emperor 
Jovian,  who  not  only  immediately  restored  Athana- 
sius but  personally  applied  to  him  for  the  correct  state- 
ment of  the  catholic  faith.  This,  after  convening  a 
council  in  Alexandria,  Athanasius  conveyed  to  him 
in  person  in  the  form  of  a  synodal  letter,  in  which 
"  the  Nicene  Creed  was  embodied,  its  scripturalness 
asserted  and  the  great  majority  of  churches  (including 
the  British)  referred  to  as  professing  it;  Arianism 
was  condemned,  Semi-Arianism  (Homoiousianism) 
pronounced  inadequate ;  the  homodusion  explained  as 
expressive  of  Christ's  real  Sonship;  the  coequality 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  maintained,  in  terms  which  partly 
anticipate  the  language  of  the  creed  of  Constanti- 
nople." 

This  promised  to  be  the  end  of  the  long  series  of 
troubles,  but  in  364  Jovian  died  and  under  his  suc- 
cessors, Valentinian  and  Valens,  the  East  fell  to  the 
latter,  who  soon  gave  evidence  of  a  repetition  of  the 


158  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

policy  of  Constantius.  Athanasius  in  the  spring  of 
365  made  another  of  tho$e  sudden  and  narrow  escapes 
from  violence  to  his  person  which  were  so  frequent 
in  his  career,  and  was  for  some  time  in  concealment. 
He  was  however  soon  restored  and  spent  the  re- 
mainder of  his  life,  until  373,  in  the  administration 
of  his  diocese,  in  advising  in  matters  of  general  eccle- 
siastical policy,  and  in  writing  his  masterly  defences 
of  the  Nicene  faith. 

This  rapid  and  brief  sketch  of  the  efforts  of  Arian- 
ism  to  overthrow  the  work  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea 
by  the  destruction  of  its  leaders  and  especially  of  the 
great  Athanasius  gives  but  a  faint  conception  either 
of  the  desperate  persistence  of  Arianism  in  its  deter- 
mination to  possess  the  world,  or  of  the  superhuman 
endurance  and  matchless  ability  of  Athanasius  in 
withstanding  and  defeating  it.  To  him  it  was  given 
to  render  the  most  splendid  and  successful  service 
in  the  noblest  and  holiest  cause  the  world  has  ever 
known. 

While  its  alliance  with  the  empire  was  enabling 
Arianism  to  pursue  its  policy  of  outward  violence, 
there  were  changes  going  on  within  it  that  were 
preparing  the  way  for  its  own  speedy  disintegra- 
tion and  destruction.  It  may  be  readily  supposed 
that  after  the  death  of  Constantine  the  Great  and 
under  Constantius  it  did  not  continue  long  to  veil 
itself  under  the  orthodox  conservatism  in  the  name 
of  which  many  of  its  earlier  crimes  were  committed ; 
or  even  under  the  Semi-Arianism,  which  though  ap- 
parently nearer  to  it  was  really  much  more  akin  to 
Nicenism,  from  which  as  Athanasius  himself  said  it 


Disintegration  of  Arianism.          159 

dissented  more  on  verbal  than  on  real  grounds. 
Arianism  proper  soon  separated  itself  and  came  out 
in  its  true  colors  under  such  men  as  Ae'tius  and  Eu- 
nomius,  who  scouting  alike  the  homoousion  and  the 
homoiousion  boldly  set  up  against  them  the  symbol 
of  the  heteroousion.  They  frankly  admitted  that 
there  was  no  middle  ground  between  an  absolute 
sameness  of  essence  and  nature  in  the  Father  and  the 
Son  and  an  absolute  difference.  Between  the  divine 
and  any,  no  matter  how  exalted,  created  nature  there 
was  an  infinite  distance  quite  as  far  from  "  likeness  " 
as  from  "sameness."  In  a  series  of  councils  Arian- 
ism proper  gradually  diverged  from  all  half-way  posi- 
tions, and  under  the  titles  Eunomians  (from  their 
leader),  Anomceans  (dv6[ioiov),  Heteroousiasts  (erepoov- 
oiov),  etc.,  openly  avowed  the  non-divinity  of  the  Son 
of  God. 

Under  this  process  it  became  progressively  appa- 
rent to  the  great  mass  of  conservatives,  Semi-Arians 
and  other  more  or  less  orthodox  dissenters  from  the 
Nicene  definitions  that  there  was  indeed  no  middle 
ground  for  them ;  that  like  the  dove  without  the  ark 
they  had  been  hovering  over  the  face  of  the  deep 
looking  in  vain  for  some  other  rest  to  the  sole  of  their 
feet,  and  none  other  existed.  The  moderation  of 
Athanasius  in  dealing  with  the  Semi-Arians  combined 
with  his  sublime  and  unshaken  confidence  in  the  truth 
and  final  triumph  of  the  Nicene  faith  must  have  had 
no  little  to  do  with  the  final  absorption  of  the  great 
mass  of  them  into  the  body  of  the  church.  When 
they  began  at  last  to  appreciate  the  true  nature  and 
outcome  of  Arianism  and  to  be  perplexed  by  their 


160  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

own  position,  Athanasius  wrote  of  them  as  "  brothers 
who  mean  essentially  what  churchmen  mean.  He 
will  not  for  the  present  urge  the  homoousion  upon 
them.  He  is  sure  that  in  time  they  will  accept  it  as 
securing  that  doctrine  of  Christ's  essential  Sonship 
which  their  own  symbol,  homoiousion,  could  not  ade- 
quately guard.  But  while  exhibiting  this  large- 
minded  patience  and  forbearance  he  is  careful  to 
contrast  the  long  series  of  Arian,  Semi-Arian  and 
conservative  creeds  with  the  one  invariable  standard 
of  the  orthodox ;  the  only  refuge  from  restless  varia- 
tions will  be  found  in  the  frank  adoption  of  the  creed 
of  Nicaea."  His  confidence  was  justified  and  his  hope 
realized  in  the  now  rapidly  approaching  collapse  of 
Arianism,  and  the  general  gathering  in  of  the  long- 
distracted  flock  into  the  Nicene  fold. 

The  explanation  then  of  the  protracted  Arian  agi- 
tation of  the  fourth  century,  divested  of  its  purely 
human  selfish  and  political  elements  and  considered 
only  in  so  far  as  it  was  religious,  may  be  stated  as 
follows.  It  included  within  itself  every  possible  shade 
of  dissatisfaction  with  the  positive  and  scientific  def- 
initions of  the  Council  of  Nicsea,  from  the  mere  con- 
servative reluctance  to  exclude  by  such  definition  at 
all  to  the  most  real  and  radical  Arian  opposition  to 
the  truth  defined,  viz.,  that  of  the  divinity  of  the 
Son  of  God. 

In  the  course  of  the  agitation  the  mind  of  the 
church  was  effectually  aroused  and  quickened  and 
every  resource  of  thought  and  language  was  tested 
in  every  direction  to  discover  some  more  perfect  or 
less  imperfect  mode  of  expressing  and  explaining  the 


Triumph  of  Nicenism.  161 

truth  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the  church  with  regard 
to  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  result  of  over 
fifty  years  of  criticism  and  experiment,  of  hesitation, 
doubt  and  distraction,  brought  the  church  around  be- 
fore the  Second  General  Council  to  the  acceptance 
after  the  fullest  reflection  of  just  what,  before  reflec- 
tion at  the  suggestion  and  by  the  guidance  of  a  few 
great  souls,  it  had  instinctively  and  intuitively  seen  to 
be  the  truth  at  the  first. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  FIRST  GENERAL  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 


| HE  reign  of  Theodosius  the  Great  was 
scarcely  less  opportune  and  decisive  for 
Christianity  than  that  of  Constantine  the 
Great.  It  gave  in  the  Second  Ecumeni- 
cal Council  the  opportunity  just  when  it 
was  needed  for  gathering  in  the  results  of  the  long 
discussion  that  succeeded  the  First.  Constantinople 
closes  the  Arian  controversy  only  in  the  sense  of  reap- 
ing the  conclusions  and  giving  final  shape  to  the  de- 
cisions which  the  logic  of  fifty  years  of  experiment 
had  practically  already  brought  to  a  determination. 
The  later  council  appears  peaceful  and  tame  in  com- 
parison with  the  earlier,  because  the  hostile  forces 
just  gathered  in  all  their  freshness  and  might  at  the 
one  were  spent  and  dead  at  the  other.  Its  conclu- 
sions were  all  foregone  ;  the  easy  displacement  every- 
where of  Arianism  by  Nicene  orthodoxy  was  accom- 
plished without  serious  disturbance,  because  Arianism 
was  exhausted  and  ready  to  pass  away,  while  Atha- 
nasianism  had  but  attained  its  strength  by  wrestling 
and  was  prepared  to  enter  upon  and  run  its  course. 
We  have  seen  how  long  Athanasius  stood  almost 
162 


Continuation  of  Nicene   Theology.     163 

alone  in  the  theological  defence  of  the  great  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  whose  scientific  statement  was  to  be 
the  outcome  of  his  labors  and  sufferings  and  which 
was  forever  after  to  be  associated  most  closely  with 
his  name.  But  through  him  and  the  exigencies  of 
the  times  there  was  arising  a  great  school  of  theolo- 
gians hardly  inferior  to  himself,  in  whose  hands  his 
work  was  to  attain  almost  complete  and  final  perfec- 
tion. Not  to  mention  Hilary  of  Poictiers  in  the  West, 
in  the  East  the  three  great  Cappadocian  bishops, 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Basil,  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
were  all  born  about  or  not  long  after  the  date  of  the 
Council  of  Nicaea,  and  had  added  their  labors  to  those 
of  Athanasius  before  that  of  Constantinople. 

In  an  important  point  the  scientific  statement  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  left  incomplete  in  the 
mind  of  Athanasius  and  in  the  definition  of  Nicaea. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  in  the  discussions  of  that 
definition  the  brunt  of  controversy  had  fallen  upon 
the  word  "  ousia  "  ;  was  the  Son  of  God  in  the  relation 
of  his  nature  to  that  of  the  Father  homoousios  or 
homoiousios,  or  heteroousios,  of  the  same  or  similar  or 
other  and  dissimilar  essence  or  substance  ?  The  point 
so  far  not  only  attained  in  thought  but  also  reduced 
to  successful  expression  in  the  homoousion  was  the  es- 
sential and  real  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God.  In  all 
the  discussions  the  fact  also  of  a  personal  distinction, 
and  an  eternal  distinction,  between  Father  and  Son 
had  been  equally  insisted  upon  and  was  no  doubt 
involved  or  implied  in  the  language  of  the  Nicene 
Creed.  But  it  had  not  been  expressed  in  any  definite 
single  term  which  had  commended  itself  to  all  or 


164  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

most  of  the  Nicene  theologians,  or  to  the  mind  of 
Athanasius  himself,  as  exactly  designating  the  place 
of  the  distinction,  as  "ousia"  did  that  of  the  identity. 
It  was  finally  agreed  that  in  the  Godhead  there  was 
one  ousia,  but  there  were  three  hypostases ;  the  first 
of  these  terms  was  already  fixed  but  the  second  was 
not,  nor  any  equivalent  for  it.  It  was  the  Gregories 
and  Basil  who  mainly  effected  the  determination  and 
separation  of  the  term  "hypostasis"  to  this  specific 
sense  and  fixed  it  in  the  use  of  the  church.  The  thing 
expressed  by  it  is  vastly  more  delicate  and  difficult  to 
be  understood  or  expressed  than  the  meaning  of  the 
other  term,  "ousia."  The  theologians  of  the  fourth 
century,  while  feeling  the  necessity  of  a  word  designat- 
ing the  distinctions  in  the  Godhead  and  exhausting  the 
resources  of  the  Greek  language  to  find  one,  would 
never  have  consented  to  the  use  of  a  term  so  strong 
as  our  English  one  "  person,"  which  requires  the 
most  careful  guarding  and  explanation  not  to  express 
too  much.  The  distinctions  in  the  Trinity  are  indeed 
essentially  personal  and  in  one  sense  no  other  term 
will  properly  express  them;  for  in  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost  just  what  we  recognize  in  each  is  a  sub- 
ject of  living  activities  who  must  of  necessity  be  dis- 
criminated from  the  others  and  who  bears  relations  to 
the  others,  and  this  is  just  what  we  mean  by  a  person. 
But  the  different  personal  subjects  within  the  God- 
head ought  not  even  remotely  to  be  compared,  which 
our  use  of  the  term  "  persons  "  almost  compels,  with 
such  differences  and  distinctions  as  exist  between  men 
who  are  not  only  wholly  distinct  but  wholly  separate 
and  apart  from  one  another.  From  this  false  impres- 


Meaning  of  "Hypostasis"  or  "Person"  165 

sion  by  association  the  Greek  hypostasis  was  free,  and 
yet  even  with  that  advantage  the  tripersonality  was 
in  danger  of  running  into  a  tritheism,  to  which  we  are 
vastly  more  liable. 

Thus  in  the  East  "  hypostasis  "  was  gradually  be- 
coming the  term  expressive  of  personal  distinction, 
in  competition  however  with  the  other  term  prosopon, 
the  equivalent  of  the  Latin  persona.  In  the  West 
persona  was  preferred,  while  substantia,  the  exact 
etymological  equivalent  of  "  hypostasis,"  was  used  in 
the  other  sense,  of  "  ousia,"  essence  or  substance.  In 
this  confusion  and  conflict  of  expressions  there  was 
of  course  much  friction  and  misunderstanding  among 
those  who  were  at  bottom  agreed.  But  as  time  went 
on  and  it  was  made  more  and  more  apparent  that 
among  the  orthodox  it  was  simply  a  question  of  the 
meaning  of  words  and  not  any  difference  in  the 
understanding  of  things,  it  was  peacefully  and  tacitly 
agreed  that  in  Greek  and  in  Latin  the  one  truth 
should  be  expressed  as  best  it  might,  in  the  terms 
that  were  least  insufficient  and  misleading.  It  is 
however  unfortunate  that  the  Westerns  should  be 
limited,  if  they  were  so,  first  to  the  term  "  substance  " 
for  "ousia,"  which  goes  the  furthest  toward  imparting 
material  conceptions  into  the  notion  of  the  divine 
nature,  and  afterward  to  the  term  "persons"  for 
"hypostases,"  which  implies  popularly  at  least  the 
widest  not  merely  distinction  but  separation  between 
the  three  persons  in  the  one  divine  substance. 

Although  we  have  already,  perhaps  at  too  great 
length,  anticipated  it,  it  will  be  necessary  in  order  to 
indicate  the  additional  length  or  depth  to  which  Trin- 


1 66  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

itarian  speculation  was  carried  by  the  great  theological 
school  of  this  period,  to  review  the  course  of  Trinita- 
rian thought  up  to  this  point.  This  course  has  been 
on  the  whole  an  a  posteriori  one,  a  reasoning  back 
from  the  facts  of  the  incarnation,  through  those  of 
nature  and  creation,  to  the  essential  and  internal  na- 
ture of  God  himself.  The  original  impulse  began 
with  the  religious  and  practical  necessity  of  recogniz- 
ing the  real  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God,  incarnate  in 
Jesus  Christ,  as  afterward  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  incor- 
porate in  the  church;  and  yet  at  the  same  time  of 
personally  distinguishing  these  from  each  other  and 
from  the  Father, — that  is  to  say,  distinguishing  them 
as  different  divine  subjects  with  whom  we  deal  per- 
sonally, and  who  deal  personally  with  one  another,  in 
their  several  offices  and  functions.  This  was  at  once 
the  scriptural  representation,  and  a  representation 
necessitated  by  the  practical  and  devotional  life  and 
worship  of  the  church.  "  Baptism  doth  represent 
unto  us  our  profession,"  and  baptism  brings  us  into 
a  spiritual  and  personal  relation  of  unity  and  fellow- 
ship with  "  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost."  From  this  baptismal  formula  grew  up  all 
the  church  confessions  and  the  general  creeds,  every 
one  of  which  involved  the  threefold  personal  relation ; 
and  so  the  threefold  personal  distinction  was  wrought 
from  the  first  into  the  mind  of  every  individual  be- 
liever, as  it  was  the  confession  of  every  congregation 
and  the  common  faith  of  the  whole  church.  The 
church  was  never  for  one  instant  in  danger  of  losing 
the  sense  of  the  absolute  unity  of  God ;  yet  to  it  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  were  as  truly  God  as  the 


Review  of  Trinitarian   Thought.      167 

Father,  while  it  could  never  be  said  of  either  of  them 
that  he  was  the  Father. 

In  the  second  place  we  saw  how  immediately  the 
church  passed  back  from  the  Christological  to  the 
cosmological  significance  of  our  Lord.  He  was  the 
head  not  only  of  humanity  but  of  creation,  the  end 
and  final  cause  of  nature  as  well  as  of  grace.  Now 
as  in  the  incarnation  so  in  the  creation  the  rational, 
ideating,  creative  principle  and  cause  of  the  world, 
that  which  is  manifest  in  phenomena,  cannot  be  any- 
thing else  than  God  (#edf)  and  yet  it  is  not  God  (6  6e6$). 
That  is  to  say,  it  is  not  the  divine  ousia  but  the  divine 
Logos  which  is  revealed  in  creation.  Just  as  it  is  not 
a  man's  being  but  his  thought  or  mind  or  will  which 
is  expressed  in  those  productions  of  his  which  are 
from  him  but  are  distinguished  from  himself;  only 
with  this  difference,  that  while  in  man's  productions 
the  objectified  thought  or  will  becomes  separated  and 
ceases  to  be  living  and  personal,  that  of  God  can 
never  be  so  but  is  always  personal  and  himself,  though 
it  may  need  equally  to  be  distinguished  from  himself. 

That  the  Trinitarian  movement  was  a  more  or  less 
conscious  or  unconscious  solution  of  the  truth  which 
lay  just  half-way  between  deism  and  pantheism  may 
be  illustrated  historically  as  well  as  speculatively. 
The  principle  underlying  pantheism  may  be  described 
as  "substantiality,"  that  of  deism  as  "  creationism." 
According  to  the  former  all  being  or  existence  is  of 
the  substance  of  God,  an  evolution  or  extension  of 
himself ;  according  to  the  latter  it  is  not  of  the  being 
but  of  the  bare  will  or  word  of  God.  The  one  sees 
the  world  only  in  God  and  God  only  in  the  world. 


1 68  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

To  the  other,  the  world  and  God  are  wholly  not  only 
distinct  but  separate  one  from  the  other.  Now  the 
bare  statement  of  the  facts  makes  it  apparent  that  as 
the  earlier  development  of  Christianity  was  between 
the  deism  of  Ebionism  and  the  Gnostic  pantheism  of 
Docetism,  so  its  progress  in  the  period  we  are  con- 
sidering lies  between  Arianism  and  Sabellianism, 
which  are  to  a  certain  extent  their  successors  on  op- 
posite sides  of  the  truth.  On  the  one  hand  Arianism 
represents  the  barest  and  baldest  creationism ;  it  not 
only  puts  the  world  outside  of  God,  but  separates  it 
the  furthest  possible  from  him  by  making  it  the 
creation  of  a  creature.  On  the  other  side  Sabellian- 
ism, in  its  original  form  and  in  its  revival  by  Mar- 
cellus,  through  the  denial  of  essential  and  eternal 
distinctions  in  God,  is  constantly  running  into  the 
pantheistic  extreme  of  confounding  God  himself  with 
the  world.  God  who  is  eternally  and  essentially  one 
and  without  distinctions  becomes  three  in  the  economy 
of  creation  and  incarnation.  But  the  Son,  for  exam- 
ple, who  is  manifested  in  these  divine  acts  is  only  a 
different  manifestation  of  the  one  divine  person  and 
is  really  identical  with  the  Father.  So  that  it  is  the 
Godhead,  and  not  the  Logos  or  Son  of  God  only,  who 
is  revealed  in  creation  and  incarnate  in  Christ.  Now 
Trinitarian  theism,  as  developed  in  the  theology  of 
the  period,  not  only  avoided  the  error  of  either  ex- 
treme but  was  able  to  hold  and  to  do  full  justice  to 
the  truth  of  each.  It  fully  holds  the  truth  of  crea- 
tionism as  against  the  pantheistic  error  of  substantial- 
ity. All  works  of  God,  like  creation  and  redemption, 
are  in  a  true  sense  outside  of  him  and  must  be  dis- 


Distinctions  within  the  Godhead.      169 

tinguished  from  him  ;  they  are  revelations  or  manifes- 
tations not  of  his  ousia  or  being  but  of  his  Logos  or 
objective  self-expression;  not  of  himself  but  of  his 
personal  wisdom  and  power  and  love.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  world  is  not  in  the  Arian  sense  outside  of 
God  and  God  outside  of  it,  but  each  is,  in  a  truer 
sense  than  the  Sabellian  or  pantheistic  one,  in  the 
other.  For  though  the  Logos  who  is  the  inner  and 
ideal  truth  and  reality  of  both  creation  and  redemp- 
tion is  not  6  0eof ,  he  is  6eog.  By  which  is  meant  that 
while  he  is  not  also  Father  and  Holy  Ghost,  he  is 
nevertheless  not  apart  from  them,  but  in  indissoluble 
union  with  them  is  the  one  only  and  living  God;  he" 
is  not,  after  human  analogies,  the  separated  and  im- 
personal, but  the  living,  personal  and  inseparable 
wisdom,  will  and  Word  of  God. 

If  however  Trinitarian  theology  had  not  gone  back 
further  even  than  these  Christological  and  cosmolog- 
ical  evidences  and  illustrations  of  its  truth,  it  would 
have  left  the  inner  personal  distinctions  in  the  God- 
head a  matter  not  of  necessity  to  the  being  of  God 
himself,  but  only  necessary  to  the  existence  of  such 
objective  activities  as  those  which  we  designate  crea- 
tion and  redemption.  In  other  words  the  distinctions 
of  the  Trinity  would  be  relative  not  to  God  in  him- 
self, but  only  to  the  outward  activities  of  God  in  those 
things  which  are  not  himself.  Athanasius  and  the 
theologians  after  him  fully  realized  this,  and  already 
opened  up  that  rich  and  endless  field  of  philosophical 
as  well  as  theological  speculation  which  since  then 
has  so  abundantly  demonstrated  the  fact  that  the 
personal  distinctions  within  the  Godhead,  which  the 


170  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

church  as  best  it  may  has  formulated  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  are  necessary  not  only  as  a  basis 
of  true  relations  of  God  to  his  works  of  creation 
and  redemption,  but  as  a  condition  of  his  own 
being.  God  as  bare  simplicity  and  homogeneity,  as 
unity  without  differentiation  or  distinction,  cannot  be 
thought  as  being  or  doing  anything  at  all.  If  God 
is  in  himself  a  living  God,  and  does  not  merely  come 
to  life  and  activity  in  the  external  world ;  if  within 
himself,  and  not  for  the  first  time  in  it  or  in  relation 
to  it,  he  possesses  reason,  intelligence,  affection,  will 
and  energy, — then  we  must  say  that  those  distinc- 
tions which  through  the  world  and  ourselves  we  rec- 
ognize and  call  the  Trinity  must  have  existed  before 
ourselves  and  the  world  ;  for  without  them  God  could 
not  have  been  himself,  and  could  not  have  created  the 
world  and  us.  All  the  fathers  whom  we  are  now 
considering  express,  with  the  illustrations  which  are 
still  in  use,  the  fact  that  if  God  is  bare  unity  and 
absoluteness  we  cannot  predicate  of  him  wisdom 
or  knowledge,  love,  will  or  action.  If  we  cannot 
think  of  him  otherwise  than  as  eternally  all  these, 
then  there  is  in  him  from  eternity  that  ground  of 
personal  distinctions  which  is  the  condition  of  his 
being  what  he  is  in  himself,  as  well  as  of  his  doing 
what  he  does  in  the  world. 

The  connection  of  these  reflections  with  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constantinople  is  this :  as  we  have  said,  the  in- 
terest and  value  of  that  council  lies  not  so  much  in 
what  it  accomplished  itself — though  that  was  some- 
thing— as  in  what  it  indicated  and  represented.  We 
may  say  that  the  Council  of  Constantinople  swept  up 


Growth  of  a  Religious  Philosophy.    171 

together  and  removed  the  debris  of  the  controversy 
inaugurated  by  that  of  Nicaea.  When  we  speak  of 
Arianism  being  swept  away  by  it,  we  do  not  of  course 
mean  that  this  was  literally  and  universally  so.  There 
was  no  little  life  and  survival  still  to  be  found  in  it 
in  spots,  and  it  long  continued  to  exhibit  vigor  and 
vitality  among  the  Gothic  nations  Christianized  and 
civilized  by  the  great  Arian  missionary  and  bishop 
Ulfilas.  But  if  we  look  not  at  the  actual,  in  them- 
selves less  interesting  and  valuable,  details  of  the 
council  but  at  the  changes  intellectual  and  spiritual 
which  had  taken  place  since  the  Council  of  Nicaea 
and  which  it  was  to  sum  up  and  measure,  we  shall 
find  that  what  had  taken  place  was  the  thinking  out 
and  formulating  of  a  great  religious  and  theological 
philosophy,  before  which  Arianism  was  destined  to 
evaporate  like  the  dew  before  the  sun.  The  fact  is, 
its  political  and  other  external  alliances  had  given  to 
Arianism  a  strength  and  importance  of  which  it  was 
wholly  devoid  in  itself.  Its  religious  deficiencies  and 
weakness  were  not  more  fatal  than  its  utter  lack  of 
any  rational  or  philosophical  truth  or  probability.  Its 
use  was  only  to  provoke  and  arouse  the  genuine 
Christian  thought  and  investigation  and  expression 
which  has  become  the  permanent  possession  of  the 
church  and  which  with  all  its  inevitable,  and  from  the 
first  acknowledged,  deficiencies  and  imperfections  is 
the  most  valuable  contribution  that  any  age  has  made, 
or  probably  will  ever  make,  to  either  practical  religion 
or  religious  science  and  philosophy. 

We  saw  how  the  period  of  the  Nicene  Council  had 
so  flooded  the  church  with  politics,  worldliness  and 


172  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

selfish  and  partisan  ambition  that  one  who  goes  into 
the  details  of  the  subsequent  controversies  finds  it 
hard  to  discover  in  them  or  under  them  any  real 
movement  and  progress  of  genuine  religious  and 
Christian  thought  and  life.  And  yet  out  of  that  con- 
fusion and  strife  emerged  the  scientific  and  final 
formulation  of  the  essential  principle  of  true  Chris- 
tianity, the  real  deity  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God. 
An  Athanasius  cannot  be  an  isolated  and  disconnected 
phenomenon.  Behind  him  and  a  few  others  like 
him,  and  visible  only  through  them,  was  a  great 
underlying  mass  of  living,  loving  and  suffering  Chris- 
tian faith  and  life.  They  were  but  the  organs  or 
instruments  by  which  it  wrought  out  its  faith  and  life 
into  knowledge  and  expression. 

So  again,  when,  upon  the  accession  of  Theodosius, 
Arianism  had  run  its  course  and  worked  out  its  own 
condemnation ;  and  Semi- Arianism  found  itself  sus- 
pended over  a  void  with  no  place  of  compromise  be- 
tween Arian  denial  and  Athanasian  confession  of  the 
Son  of  God ;  and  conservatives  were  beginning  to 
flock  back  like  doves  to  the  ark  which,  as  they  had 
discovered,  offered  the  only  resting-place  for  the  sole 
of  their  feet ;  and  finally  when  the  emperor  himself 
began  his  long  and  strong  reign  by  summoning  the 
church  and  the  world  back  to  Nicenism  and  ortho- 
doxy, it  is  not  strange  that,  with  instinctive  presenti- 
ment of  the  inevitable,  a  current  should  set  in  toward 
the  church  which  should  bring  in  with  it  many  whose 
return  was  actuated  by  no  deep  Christian  principle. 
There  is  certainly  more  than  enough  to  disgust  and 
repel  one  who  looks  only  upon  the  surface  of  the 


Lights  and  Shadows  of  the  Period.    1 73 

events  as  they  were  now  to  follow.  The  greatest 
soul  connected  with  the  Council  of  Constantinople, 
with  a  courage  and  manhood  that  suffers  by  compar- 
ison with  Athanasius  the  Great,  withdrew  from  it  and 
from  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople,  with  a  noble 
lament  for  the  degeneracy  of  the  times  and  the  hope- 
less selfishness  and  disorder  of  the  church,  to  seek 
refuge  and  salvation  for  himself  in  the  privacy  of  his 
ancestral  village  and  home.  But  that  there  was  a 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus  there  and  a  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
by  his  side — Basil,  the  strongest  spirit  of  the  three, 
was  dead — gives  assurance  that  there  was  much  more. 
And  even  under  the  strife  and  confusion  of  the  human 
passion  and  littleness  that  disgusted  them  they  might 
have  read  more  clearly  than  they  did  the  triumph  and 
acceptance  of  the  principles  of  Christian  theology  and 
philosophy  for  which  they,  like  Athanasius  before  them, 
had  so  patiently  labored  and  studied  and  suffered. 

We  might  indeed  be  disheartened  and  perplexed 
by  any  narration  of  the  public  fortunes  of  Christianity 
at  this  period,  as  indeed  at  almost  any  period ;  but 
let  one  go  deeper  and  familiarize  himself  with  the 
thoughts  and  lives,  the  self-denials  and  sacrifices,  the 
studies,  the  intellectual  and  spiritual  attainments  and 
achievements  of  the  Basils  and  Gregories  of  this  time  ; 
let  him  reflect  that  Gregory  Nazianzen  spent  ten 
years,  from  twenty  to  thirty,  studying  philosophy  in 
Athens  in  preparation  for  his  lifelong  devotion  to 
theology,  and  that  Basil  his  fellow-student  was  not 
his  inferior;  let  him  remember  that  there  must  have 
been  a  soil  out  of  which  such  men  grew,  and  but  learn 
the  names  of  the  mothers  and  sisters  and  friends  at 


174  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

home  who  nurtured  and  influenced  and  stimulated 
and  encouraged  them, — and  however  one  may  blush 
or  smile  at  the  abundant  folly  and  weakness  that  ap- 
pears upon  the  surface  it  will  be  impossible  to  doubt 
or  ignore  the  continuous  presence  and  grace  of  God 
and  the  living  power  of  Christianity  in  the  church. 
There  is  abundant  proof  in  contemporary  literature 
that  while  the  bishops  were  being  swayed  here  and 
there  by  political  and  worldly  considerations;  or 
what  was  much  more  common  by  their  own  inde- 
cision, and  vacillation  with  regard  to  issues  and 
questions  upon  which  they  were  compelled  and  yet 
were  not  prepared  to  take  sides;  the  great  body  of 
the  faithful  permitted  to  live  in  peace  and  leave 
thought  and  speculation  alone  were  actually  living 
lives  of  as  deep  and  sincere  Christian  faith,  devotion 
and  charity  as  have  characterized  any  age  of  the 
church.  Of  the  heads  of  the  church,  scarce  given 
between  councils  and  conferences  time  to  say  their 
prayers  or  leisure  to  learn  their  own  minds,  Hilary 
might  write  as  he  did :  "  Since  the  Nicene  Council 
we  have  done  nothing  but  write  the  creed.  While 
we  fight  about  words,  inquire  about  novelties,  take 
advantage  of  ambiguities,  criticise  authors,  fight  on 
party  questions,  have  difficulties  in  agreeing,  and 
prepare  to  anathematize  one  another,  there  is  scarcely 
a  man  who  belongs  to  Christ.  First  we  have  the 
creed  which  bids  us  not  use  the  Nicene  consubstan- 
tial  (homoousion) ;  then  comes  another  which  decrees 
and  preaches  it;  next,  the  third  excuses  the  word 
'  substance  '  as  adopted  by  the  fathers  in  their  simpli- 
city ;  lastly  the  fourth  which,  instead  of  excusing,  con- 


Faithfulness  of  the  Common  People.    175 

demns.  We  determine  creeds  by  the  year  or  by  the 
month,  we  change  our  determinations,  we  prohibit  our 
changes,  we  anathematize  our  prohibitions.  Thus  we 
either  condemn  others  in  our  own  persons,  or  our- 
selves in  the  instance  of  others,  and  while  we  bite  and 
devour  one  another,  are  like  to  be  consumed  one  of 
another."  And  yet  even  among  these  warring  bishops 
there  was  a  St.  Hilary  who  took  his  part,  and  where 
there  was  one  there  were  more ;  and  let  any  one  read 
the  life  and  writings  of  St.  Hilary  and  ask  himself 
whether  he  belonged  to  Christ.  It  is  only  God  who 
knows  how  many  even  among  the  bishops  had  not 
bowed  the  knee  to  the  Baal  of  imperial  patronage  or 
pressure  but  remained  true  in  their  hearts  to  the  faith 
and  life  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  On  the  other  hand, 
with  regard  to  the  simple  faithful  lay  people,  Basil 
could  write  as  follows  of  the  attempt  to  impose  Ari- 
anism  upon  them  in  Asia  Minor — and  yet  stronger 
pictures  are  drawn  of  the  condition  of  things  in  Egypt 
and  elsewhere :  "  Matters  are  come  to  this  pass :  the 
people  have  left  their  houses  of  prayer  and  assemble 
in  deserts, — a  pitiable  sight ;  women  and  children  and 
old  men,  and  men  otherwise  infirm,  wretchedly  faring 
in  the  open  air,  amid  the  most  profuse  rains  and 
snow-storms  and  winds  and  frosts  of  winter ;  and  again 
in  summer  under  a  scorching  sun.  To  this  they  sub- 
mit because  they  will  have  no  part  in  the  wicked 
Arian  leaven."  Again:  "Only  one  offence  is  now 
vigorously  punished, — an  accurate  observance  of  our 
fathers'  traditions.  For  this  cause  the  pious  are  driven 
from  their  countries  and  transported  into  deserts. 
The  people  are  in  lamentation,  in  continual  tears  at 


176  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

home  and  abroad.  There  is  a  cry  in  the  city,  a  cry  in 
the  country,  in  the  roads,  in  the  deserts.  Joy  and 
spiritual  cheerfulness  are  no  more ;  our  feasts  are 
turned  into  mourning,  our  houses  of  prayer  are  shut 
up,  our  altars  deprived  of  the  spiritual  worship."  All 
this  is  not  the  description  of  a  worldly  and  irreligious 
population. 

To  illustrate  by  particular  instances,  Gregory  Na- 
zianzen  had  a  Nonna  for  his  mother,  as  Augustine 
a  Monica.  Let  us  select  almost  at  random  among 
the  holy  women,  the  mothers  and  sisters  and  wives  of 
that  age,  the  example  of  the  wise  counsellor  and  guide 
in  his  youth  of  the  great  Basil.  Gregory  Nazianzen 
and  Basil  had  spent  many  years  together  in  the  uni- 
versities of  Athens,  and  on  their  return  rose  at  once 
to  great  repute  in  their  respective  homes.  Gregory 
indeed  repudiates  the  idea  of  either  his  friend  or  him- 
self having  been  seriously  influenced  by  ambition  or 
love  of  praise ;  "  but  Basil's  excellent  sister,  Macrina  " 
— we  are  told  on  good  authority — "  judged  him  less 
indulgently  and  more  truly.  She  found  him  on  his 
return  from  Athens  inordinately  elated,  puffed  up 
with  the  pride  of  philosophy  and  science,  and  looking 
down  with  contempt  on  his  superiors  in  dignity  and 
rank.  He  had  put  on  the  airs  and  habits  of  a  fine 
gentleman,  and  without  being  stained  with  the  vices 
of  the  city  was  not  altogether  insensible  to  its  plea- 
sures. It  was  a  period  of  some  peril  to  the  young  and 
ardent  rhetorician,  the  object  of  universal  admiration. 
Macrina  proved  his  good  genius.  Her  warnings  and 
counsels  saved  him  from  the  seductions  of  the  world. 
Basil  describes  himself  at  this  period  as  one  awaked 


The  Creed  of  Constantinople.         177 

out  of  a  deep  sleep,  and  in  the  marvellous  light  of 
gospel  truth  discovering  the  folly  of  that  wisdom  of 
this  world  in  the  study  of  which  nearly  all  his  youth 
had  vanished."  Such  glimpses  behind  the  scenes, 
from  what  was  going  on  upon  the  public  stage  to 
what  was  hidden  from  sight  in  the  secrecy  of  private 
Christian  homes,  are  necessary  at  once  to  console  us 
for  the  intrigues  and  violence  of  Christian  partisans 
and  politicians  and  to  account  for  the  presence  and 
rise  in  their  midst  of  Christian  scholars,  theologians 
and  saints  than  whom  no  other  age  has  known  more 
or  greater. 

We  have  seen  that  the  purpose  and  result  of  the 
Council  of  Constantinople  was  simply  to  disestablish 
Arianism  and  restore  Nicenism.  Its  first  canon  rati- 
fies the  Nicene  Creed  in  its  original  form,  and  anathe- 
matizes the  several  different  degrees,  on  either  side, 
of  Arianism  and  Sabellianism ;  and  besides  these 
another  heresy,  which  as  pertaining  to  our  Lord's 
humanity  and  not  his  divinity  forms  not  like  them 
the  subject-matter  of  previous  ones,  but  the  transition 
to  a  new  controversy,  viz.,  Apollinarianism,  which 
will  next  demand  our  attention. 

It  has  usually  been  accepted  without  question  that 
what  we  possess  as  the  Nicene  Creed,  or  what  is 
often  called  for  greater  exactness  the  Niceno-Con- 
stantinopolitan  Creed,  is  the  creed  of  Nicaea  with  the 
addition  at  Constantinople  of  the  fuller  sections  upon 
the  person  and  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  even 
leaving  out  these  (and  of  course  the  later  Filioque 
clause),  our  so-called  Nicene  Creed  has  so  many,  in- 
considerable as  well  as  considerable,  divergencies  from 


178  The  Ecumenical  Coimcils. 

the  real  Nicene  confession  of  faith  that  it  may  well 
merit  more  consideration  than  we  can  give  it  here. 
For  one  thing,  no  little  importance  had  been  attached 
not  only  to  the  bfioovaiov  but  to  the  IK  rfjg  6voia<;  of 
the  original  form.  If  the  first  expressed  the  oneness 
of  essence  or  substance  against  Arianism,  the  second 
was  thought  to  declare  the  distinction  of  persons 
against  Sabellianism.  But  the  second  has  been  left 
out,  and  it  is  somewhat  unaccountable  not  only  why 
this  but  why  certain  other  and  more  indifferent 
changes  should  have  been  made.  On  the  other 
hand  the  clause  "  God  of  God  "  or  "  God  from  God  " 
is  inserted,  which  was  not  in  the  original ;  and  it  may 
well  be  claimed  that  the  gain  of  this  phrase  quite 
counterbalances  the  loss  of  the  other,  for  it  just  as 
well  expresses  distinction  from,  along  with  oneness 
with,  the  Father.  But  there  seems  to  be  not  only 
no  reason  given  why  these  changes  should  be  made, 
but  no  proof  that  they  were  made  by  this  council, 
and  the  explanation  of  them  has  yet  to  be  dis- 
covered. 

With  regard  to  the  additions  which  the  council  did 
make,  the  question  which  had  arisen  under  the  name 
of  Macedonius  was  not,  as  we  might  now  suppose,  as 
to  the  separate  personality  but  as  to  the  real  divinity 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Macedonians  were  only  a 
sect  of  Arians  applying  to  the  Third  Person  of  the 
Trinity  the  same  irrational  and  irreligious  speculations 
which  had  been  applied  to  the  Second.  They  held 
the  Holy  Ghost,  as  they  held  the  Son,  to  be  a  crea- 
ture, of  different  and  inferior  nature  from  the  Father. 
There  is  no  real  issue  involved  in  the  discussion  which 


Practical  Legislation.  179 

has  not  been  already  considered  and  we  need  not  de- 
vote further  consideration  to  the  heresy. 

As  to  the  practical  legislation  of  the  council  bear- 
ing upon  the  organization  and  government  of  the 
church,  the  famous  canon  providing  that  "  the  bishop 
of  Constantinople  shall  hold  the  first  rank  after  the 
bishop  of  Rome,  because  Constantinople  is  New 
Rome,"  was  probably  directed  primarily  against  the 
repeated  and  recent  interferences  and  meddlings  of 
the  older  patriarchates  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch 
with  the  affairs  of  Constantinople.  The  effect  was 
rapidly  to  make  Constantinople  in  the  East  almost 
what  Rome  had  been  without  competition  or  ques- 
tion in  the  West.  The  bearing  of  the  canon  upon 
the  question  of  the  ground  and  nature  of  the  suprem- 
acy of  Rome,  making  it  political  rather  than  ecclesi- 
astical, as  also  that  of  the  equally  well-known  canon 
of  Sardica,  providing  for  certain  appeals  to  Rome, 
does  not  concern  our  present  purpose  and  has  been 
abundantly  dealt  with  by  others. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

APOLLINARIANISM 

MONG  Catholics  and  heretics,  among 
anathematizers  and  anathematized, 
prominent  in  the  Council  of  Constan- 
tinople or  made  prominent  by  it,  we 
discovered  one  thinker  who  had  passed 
through  and  beyond  the  Trinitarian  controversies  of 
the  fourth  century,  and  was  already  busy  with  all 
the  Christological  problems  of  the  fifth.  Apollinaris, 
or  Apollinarius,  bishop  of  Laodicea,  was  at  once 
among  the  most  literary  and  scholarly  men  and 
among  the  most  acute  and  profound  theologians  of 
that  great  age.  He  was  thoroughly  in  accord  with 
all  the  catholic  results  of  the  first  two  general  coun- 
cils, an  Athanasian  of  the  Athanasians ;  and  his 
mind  ran  on  naturally,  though  perhaps  prematurely 
and  too  hastily  as  we  shall  see,  to  the  application  of 
Trinitarian  principles  to  the  question  of  the  divine- 
human  personality  of  Jesus  Christ.  That  is  to  say, 
he  was  the  first  to  carry  the  theological  discussions 
of  the  fourth  century  on  into  the  Christological  ones 
of  the  fifth. 

Jesus  Christ  being  divine,  in  the  sense  now  once 

for  all  determined,  in  what  sense  and  how  could  he 

1 80 


Opening  of  Christological  Discussion.    181 

be  also  and  at  the  same  time  human?  There  had 
been  those,  though  not  many  even  so  late  as  the 
third  century,  who  had  held  that  our  Lord  was  pri- 
marily human  and  only  secondarily  divine ;  that  is, 
he  was  a  man  essentially  like  other  men  who  became 
or  was  made  divine  through  the  union  of  God  with 
him.  He  was  eV0eoc  avdpunoq,  a  man  filled  with  God ; 
which  might  mean  either  filled  with  the  impersonal 
influence  or  grace,  the  wisdom,  goodness  and  power 
of  God ;  or  that  the  personal  Logos,  or  perhaps 
Spirit,  of  God  was  in  a  peculiar  sense  united  with 
him  and  made  him  the  organ  of  his  personal  self- 
revelation  and  operation  in  the  world.  According 
to  the  first  view,  our  Lord  was  one  person  and  that 
a  human  person ;  it  was  only  his  life  and  character 
and  conduct  which  by  the  grace  of  God  in  him  were 
divine ;  he  was  a  man.  According  to  the  second 
view,  he  was  necessarily  two  persons  in  one ;  he  was 
(i)  the  particular  man  or  human  person  with  whom 
the  divine  Person  had  entered  into  union,  and  (2)  he 
was  the  divine  Person  of  whom  the  other  was  only 
the  human  organ  or  medium  of  self-revelation  and 
communication. 

Now  after  the  Nicene  Council  and  its  thorough 
confirmation  in  the  Constantinopolitan,  no  one  who 
was  in  any  sort  of  union  or  sympathy  with  the  mind 
of  the  church  could  hold  any  view  of  the  primary 
humanity  of  Christ.  The  person  of  our  Lord,  in  per- 
fect harmony  with  his  own  self-consciousness  and 
with  the  scriptural  conception  and  representation  of 
him,  had  in  the  mind  of  the  church  assumed  such 
a  universal,  theological  and  cosmological  as  well  as 


1 82  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

human  significance,  that  it  was  impossible  to  regard 
him  otherwise  than  as  primarily  a  divine  Person.  He 
was  not  a  man  who  had  received  God  into  himself 
but  God  who  had  taken  man  into  himself,  not  a  man 
who  had  become  God  but  God  who  had  become 
man. 

Of  this  primary  deity  and  only  secondary  human- 
ity of  the  Lord  the  victorious  Nicene  theology  was 
full ;  and  no  one  more  so  than  Apollinaris.  Now  it 
will  be  readily  seen  that  at  such  a  moment  it  would 
be  impossible  at  once,  at  least  from  the  Athanasian 
side,  to  render  to  the  humanity  all  that  was  due  to 
it,  to  enter  fully  into  all  the  significance  of  the  func- 
tion of  the  human  side  in  the  joint  divine  and  hu- 
man process  of  salvation.  And  yet  it  was  necessary 
that  the  human  part  as  well  as  the  divine  should 
be  recognized,  and  recognized  in  all  its  totality. 
Salvation  is  a  divine  act;  it  is  primarily  a  divine  act. 
That  God  redeems,  sanctifies  and  spiritually  com- 
pletes is  as  essential  a  part  of  his  divine  ei-lpyeia  in 
the  universe  as  that  he  creates.  Indeed  it  is  the 
same,  it  is  that  higher  spiritual  creation  in  which  he 
completes  and  reveals  the  natural,  and  explains,  vin- 
dicates and  justifies  all  his  works.  The  incarnation 
of  the  Logos  in  the  spiritual  redemption  and  glorifi- 
cation of  personal  humanity  is  only  the  continuation 
and  interpretation  of  his  whole  cosmical  and  natural 
activity  in  the  inanimate,  irrational  and  impersonal 
creation.  Through  the  evolution  of  the  universe 
God  comes  to  himself  in  man ;  there  is  no  lower  self- 
hood or  personality  in  which  he  could  manifest  him- 
self personally.  Fulfilling  himself  through  all,  he 


The  End  of  the  Incarnation.         183 

only  fulfils  himself  in  that  in  which  it  is  possible  for 
him  to  be  himself.  For  God  is  essentially  not  sub- 
stance or  force  or  energy ;  all  these  he  could  be  in 
an  impersonal  and  inanimate  world.  He  is  reason, 
freedom,  love  and  personality,  and  all  these  he 
could  become  only  in  a  world  of  reasonable,  free  and 
loving  persons,  who  are  his  children  and  in  whom  he 
reproduces  and  fulfils  himself.  All  this  will  one  day 
be  a  scientific  fact  as  well  as  a  religious  truth, — in 
the  day  when  all  the  things  of  the  spirit  shall  be- 
come verifiable  facts  of  observation  and  experience, 
objects  of  sight  and  not  only  intuitions  of  faith.  Then 
it  shall  be  seen  that  the  ultimate  truth  of  universal 
evolution  is  that  the  natural  is  completed  in  the  spir- 
itual ;  that  God  through  all  nature  comes  to  himself 
in  man — not  the  man  who  is  but  a  part,  though  the 
highest  part,  of  nature,  but  the  man.  who  is  also  the 
incarnation  of  personal  Godhead.  In  Christ  the 
church  sees  indeed  a  man,  but  not  only  a  man;  it 
sees  all  men  and  the  whole  creation  taken  up  into 
and  made  one  with  God,  through  God's  own  fulfill- 
ing himself  in  them.  When  Christ  is  complete,  the 
teaching  of  Christianity  is  that  God  will  be  all  in  all, 
and  all  will  be  in  God,  and  yet  not  cease  to  be  itself 
but  only  truly  begin  to  be  itself  in  him.  But  God 
does  not  fulfil  himself  in  nature  through  violation 
of  the  uniformity  or  limitation  of  the  universality  of 
nature's  own  laws.  He  fulfils  himself  in  it  and  not 
in  suspensions  or  contradictions  of  it.  And  in  human- 
ity as  a  whole  God  will  incarnate  himself  in  the  re- 
demption, sanctification  and  exaltation  of  itself,  and 
not  merely  in  activities  in  or  through  it  which  are 


184  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

not  itself.  So  precisely  in  our  Lord,  the  end  of  the 
divinity  in  the  humanity  is  not  to  take  its  place  and 
do  something  instead  of  it;  it  is  simply  to  supply 
the  conditions  and  impart  the  means  by  which  it  shall 
completely  and  perfectly  become  itself.  The  divinity 
of  Jesus  Christ  is  seen  in  the  realization  and  reality 
of  the  humanity  in  which  it  is  incarnate,  and  not  in 
the  displacement  of  it  or  the  substitution  of  some- 
thing else  for  it. 

This  side  of  the  truth  of  Christ  is  what  Apollinaris 
ignored.  In  his  view  the  humanity  of  our  Lord 
wholly  disappears  in  his  deity;  or  rather  it  never 
truly  appears,  nor  plays  any  essential  part  in  the 
drama  of  the  incarnation.  There  is  an  infinite  sig- 
nificance in  what  God  is  and  does  in  the  visibility  of 
his  humanity,  but  none  whatever  in  what  humanity 
does  and  becomes  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Passing  by  however  for  the  present  what  was 
lacking  in  the  system  of  Apollinaris,  let  us  look  at 
what  there  was  in  it  of  truth  and  of  permanent  value 
for  the  knowledge  of  the  person  of  Christ.  Apolli- 
naris saw  first  and  saw  with  no  little  depth  and  pene- 
tration that  the  incarnation  so  far  from  being  an 
unnatural  or  irrational  thought  was  the  very  truth 
of  both  nature  and  reason.  He  who  was  from  eter- 
nity the  divine  thought  and  will  and  purpose  of  the 
creation,  and  of  its  personal  and  spiritual  culmination 
in  man  who  was  to  be  the  end  and  fulfilment  at  once 
of  it  and  of  himself,  was  from  eternity  predestined  to 
incarnation.  What  was  the  Logos  in  the  universe 
but  the  ideation  of  man,  what  was  man  but  the  ac- 
tualization of  the  Logos?  The  Logos  was  eternal 


The  Eternal  Humanity  of  the  Son.    185 

humanity,  the  eternal  idea  of  humanity  which  was 
to  be  actualized  in  time  through  the  creation.  The 
true  end  and  destiny  of  man  is  to  be  that  which  the 
Logos  will  become  when  he  shall  through  the  crea- 
tion have  actualized  himself  in  time.  The  Logos 
and  man  are  then  the  eternal  and  the  temporal  of 
one  and  the  same  thing ;  the  Logos  is  man,  the  eter- 
nal of  him ;  and  man  is  the  Logos,  the  temporal  of 
him.  So  that  each  in  becoming  the  other  is  only 
becoming  himself;  the  eternal  Logos  temporally  in 
and  through  creation  realizes  or  becomes  himself  in 
man ;  and  man  who  temporally  realizes  the  Logos  in 
himself  eternally  realizes  or  becomes  himself  in  the 
Logos.  The  incarnation  is  accidentally,  because  of 
the  fact  of  sin  and  the  fall,  human  redemption ;  it  is 
essentially,  and  would  be  if  there  were  no  sin  or  fall, 
human  and  cosmical  completion;  because  humanity 
and  the  whole  creation  in  it  is  complete  only  as  it 
realizes  its  divine  idea  and  law,  which  is  that  through 
incarnation  the  eternal  personal  Logos  shall  realize 
or  become  anew  himself  in  it.  What  was  to  be  ac- 
complished for  and  in  all  men  through  the  generic 
incarnation  of  the  Logos,  through  the  whole  of  crea- 
tion and  in  the  whole  of  humanity,  could  only  be  so 
by  means  of  his  particular  incarnation  in  the  individ- 
ual person  of  Jesus  Christ.  For  Christ  is  not  only 
individual  but  generic  man.  He  is  not  only  a  man 
but  all  men,  who  are  to  be  included  in  him  in  the 
church  which  is  the  body  of  the  incarnation  and  in 
which  the  Logos  is  to  realize  or  anew  become  him- 
self. Apollinaris  in  this  way  teaches  the  eternal 
humanity  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  also  therefore,  in 


1 86  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

idea  at  least,  the  eternal  divinity  of  man ;  and  so  the 
eternal  predestination  and  preconstitution  of  the 
Logos  and  man  to  become  one  in  the  incarnate 
Son,  both  God  and  man. 

The  great  and  comprehensive  truth  contained  in 
this  representation  might  have  been  carried  out  with 
substantial  orthodoxy  and  with  no  little  gain  to  the 
theology  that  preceded  it,  if  it  had  been  within  the 
grasp  of  a  single  mind,  and  that  the  first  to  deal  sci- 
entifically with  the  most  difficult  of  problems,  to  see 
all  the  sides  and  provide  for  all  the  interests  involved. 
That  God  must  become  man,  must  personally  realize 
or  become  anew  himself  in  the  highest  of  his  crea- 
tures, from  the  very  nature  and  necessity  of  the 
divine  Word  to  become  that  which  it  means,  to  ac- 
tualize itself  in  that  of  which  it  is  the  idea,  was  a  great 
thought.  What  he  needed  next  to  see  and  to  say 
was  that  God  can  be  or  can  fulfil  himself  in  anything 
or  in  any  person  only  in  the  own  being  and  self- ful- 
filment of  the  thing  or  the  person.  He  cannot  be  in 
it  to  efface  or  destroy  it,  to  make  it  not  itself  or  save 
it  from  the  necessity  of  being  or  becoming  its  own 
self.  He  cannot  be  in  nature  to  make  it  not  nature, 
or  in  man  to  make  him  not  man.  It  is  perfectly  true 
that  man  can  only  fulfil  or  become  himself  as  he  ful- 
fils the  Logos,  and  that  he  can  only  do  so  as  the 
Logos  fulfils  him  by  fulfilling  or  becoming  himself  in 
him.  But  the  self-realization  of  the  divine  Logos  in 
man  must  not  be  at  the  cost  or  at  any  diminution  or 
detriment  of  the  part  which  man  must  take  in  realiz- 
ing the  Logos,  for  it  is  in  this  that  he  realizes  and 
becomes  himself.  In  other  words  the  divinity  must 


Christ  the  Realization  of  Humanity.    187 

not  be  at  the  expense  of  the  humanity  in  a  process 
the  end  of  which  is  that  the  divine  Word  is  to  accom- 
plish itself  in  the  highest  being  or  becoming  of  man. 
The  incarnation  must  be  the  supreme  deed  and  attain- 
ment of  humanity  as  well  as  of  deity.  Man  in  it  must 
become  his  completest,  highest  and  fullest  self.  If  on 
the  contrary  God  is  to  take  the  place  of  him  or  of  any 
part  of  him,  if  he  is  to  be  to  him  in  any  way  instead  of 
himself,  or  to  spare  him  any  trouble  or  pain  of  being 
himself  or  himself  becoming  himself,  then  the  incar- 
nation is  no  true  human  redemption  and  completion, 
for  God  is  in  him  to  his  hurt  and  not  help,  to  his 
diminution  and  not  increase.  It  is  as  necessary  that 
the  man  himself  and  all  the  man  shall  be  in  the  in- 
carnation as  that  God  shall  be  in  it.  And  that  is 
what  the  church  fathers  did  not  yet  fully  see,  though 
they  implicitly  held  it  and  in  terms  asserted  it  and 
instinctively  as  in  the  case  of  Apollinaris  condemned 
and  rejected  any  denial  of  it.  It  is  easy  to  realize 
as  they  did  that  in  Christ  we  are  in  God — in  the 
divine  atonement,  redemption  and  eternal  life — to 
accept  his  part  in  the  total  and  consummated  results 
which  he  has  wrought  in  our  nature,  without  equally 
realizing  the  significance  and  necessity  of  the  human 
part,  in  a  realized  and  actual  spiritual  freedom  and 
life  of  ourselves  in  God.  And  in  Jesus  Christ  what 
that  age — like  our  own — needed  most  to  see  in  him, 
because  it  saw  it  least,  was  not  the  divine  fact  of  God 
incarnate  but  the  human  fact  of  man  redeemed,  hu- 
manity free  from  sin  and  alive  from  death.  And  if 
in  him  we  see  not  only  the  freedom  but  the  redemp- 
tion, or  becoming  free,  and  not  only  the  life  but  the 


1 88  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

resurrection  or  making  alive  of  humanity — then  the 
humanity  he  assumed,  to  redeem  and  raise  from  the 
dead,  was  that  which  needed  to  find  in  him  its  free- 
dom and  life. 

It  is  beside  our  purpose  as  it  would  be  impossible 
in  so  brief  a  space  to  give  an  outline  of  the  system 
of  Apollinaris  which  should  at  once  expose  its  defects 
and  errors  and  do  justice  to  its  depth  and  truth. 
Our  aim  is  not  an  historical  exposition  of  successive 
theological  or  Christological  systems,  but  only  the 
illustration  through  them  of  the  principles  which 
entered  successively  into  the  constitution  and  evo- 
lution of  the  true  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ. 
Apollinaris  was  one  and  perhaps  the  greatest  of 
those  who  taught  an  incomplete  humanity  of  our 
Lord,  and  who  must  be  ranked  on  the  Docetic  side 
of  the  truth  of  Christology.  It  would  not  however 
be  as  just  as  it  might  seem  to  dismiss  him  with  the 
charge  of  teaching  that  the  Logos  assumed  in  his 
human  birth  only  a  natural  body  and  animal  soul, 
while  the  place  of  that  higher  part  in  us  which  we 
call  the  spirit  was  supplied  by  himself,  and  that 
therefore  our  Lord  had  no  truly  human  rational  and 
spiritual  nature.  For  we  must  remember  that  he 
held  that  the  Logos  was  himself  human,  that  he  was 
the  eternal  higher  or  spiritual  truth  or  side  of  human- 
ity, who  in  order  to  become  like  us  and  as  one  of  us 
needed  only  to  assume  the  material  or  natural  of 
which  he  was  already  the  supernatural  or  spiritual. 
From  his  point  of  view  he  could  claim  to  hold  the 
very  completest  and  fullest  humanity  of  our  Lord, 
because  he  held  him  to  be  the  heavenly  and  divine 


Significance  of  Redemption.  189 

fulness  and  completeness  of  it.  He  was  the  eternal 
humanity  who  only  needed  to  take  to  himself  the 
lower  accidents  of  our  material  and  mundane  condi- 
tion in  order  to  become  like  us,  and  by  redeeming 
us  from  these  make  us  like  himself.  If  then  he  as- 
sumed not  all  but  only  some  and  the  lower  elements 
of  a  human  nature  in  his  birth  into  the  world,  it  was 
because  he  already  possessed  or  rather  was  in  him- 
self its  highest  element,  and  only  needed  these  lower 
ones  in  order  to  enter  into  our  temporal  and  earthly 
condition. 

We  may  not  perhaps  then  be  able  to  say  that  the 
Christ  of  Apollinaris  was  not  a  true  and  complete 
man  in  all  the  actual  as  well  as  ideal  truth  of  human 
nature,  but  the  objection  which  may  not  lie  here  lies 
elsewhere  with  equal  force.  To  the  Docetism  which 
in  whole  or  in  part  impairs  the  completeness  and  re- 
ality of  our  Lord's  human  nature  and  life,  we  say : 
Of  what  use  or  interest  is  it  to  us,  beyond  that  of  a 
mere  exhibition  or  external  representation,  that  God 
and  not  man,  that  God  under  a  semblance  of  human- 
ity should  present  to  us  a  spectacle  of  human  victory 
over  sin  and  sorrow  and  death  ?  What  we  want  is 
not  a  divine  ideal  but  a  human  actuality  of  these 
things.  We  want  to  see  ourselves  who  groan  under 
the  bondage  of  sin  and  death  free  from  sin  and  alive 
from  death.  Show  us  this  in  Christ  and  we  will  see 
in  him  a  real,  because  our  own,  redemption  and  res- 
urrection. We  believe  in  a  divine  redemption  but 
only  in  one  that  exhibits  itself  in  an  actual  human 
freedom.  We  believe  that  in  Christ  God  redeems, 
but  only  because  we  see  in  Christ,  in  Christ's  own 


190  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

sinlessness  and  holiness,  that  man  is  free.  And  man 
can  be  only  freely  free ;  it  must  be  the  freedom  of 
himself,  of  his  own  will  and  his  whole  self.  It  must 
be  himself  fulfilling  God's  will  as  well  as  God's  will 
fulfilling  itself  in  him.  Jesus  Christ  is  redemption 
both  active  and  passive.  He  is  divine  redemption 
manifested  in  human  redemption,  God's  freeing  re- 
vealed in  man's  freedom.  If  Jesus  Christ  were  not  as 
man  free  from  sin  and  risen  from  the  dead,  we  should 
not  accept  him  as  God  freeing  from  sin  and  raising 
from  the  dead.  The  cause  is  seen  only  in  the  effect, 
and  the  effect  exists  only  in  the  cause. 

Now  Apollinaris,  appreciating  the  Christian  de- 
mand that  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  must  be  really 
and  completely  human,  makes  him  so  indeed  in  a 
sense  which  in  terms  cannot  be  denied.  The  person 
and  personal  life  of  Jesus  are  certainly  in  the  highest 
sense  human,  but  it  is  only  because  the  divine  Logos 
is  himself  eternally,  and  independently  of  his  incar- 
nation, human.  And  what  humanity  is  this  of  his 
which  is  so  holy  and  living  and  divine?  It  is  only 
one  which  was  so  before,  which  is  inherently  and 
essentially  and  necessarily  so  and  never  had  been  or 
could  be  otherwise.  What  redemption  then  has  he 
wrought,  what  sanctification  imparted,  what  glorifi- 
cation accomplished  ?  The  holiness,  the  life  of  Jesus, 
what  was  it  but  the  mere  display  of  the  perfections 
if  not  of  God  only,  yet  of  a  divine,  ideal,  eternal 
humanity — very  different  from  that  which  the  Son 
of  God  came  to  seek  and  save,  to  sanctify  from 
sin  and  raise  up  out  of  death.  No,  what  we  want 
and  what  we  find  in  the  holiness  and  the  life  of 


Christ's  Humanity  Ours.  191 

Jesus  is  not  that  of  a  divine  humanity  which  knows 
nothing  of  sin  and  death,  but  that  of  our  own  earthly 
poor  and  sinful  humanity  which  he  stooped  to  lift 
out  of  the  mire  and  the  grave  and  infinitely  to 
quicken  and  enrich  with  himself.  And  as  he  took 
nothing  other  than  ourselves,  so  he  has  not  exalted 
us  at  the  expense  or  cost  of  ourselves.  As  our 
whole  humanity  was  present  and  acted  in  him,  arose 
and  walked,  believed  and  lived,  obeyed  and  was  holy, 
put  off  itself  and  put  on  God,  arose  from  the  dead 
and  ascended  up  into  heaven,  so  in  losing  we  but 
find  ourselves  in  him;  he  in  no  sense  or  measure 
takes  the  place  of  ourselves,  but  himself  becomes  our 
true  selves  and  fulfils  us  in  fulfilling  himself  in  us. 

The  difficulty  with  Apollinaris  as  with  most  Chris- 
tians now  is  that  he  was  so  concerned  that  our  Lord 
should  be  God  that  he  was  not  sufficiently  willing 
he  should  be  man.  Under  the  shadow  of  a  great 
and  valuable  truth  he  contrives  that  he  shall  be  man 
without  the  humiliation  of  becoming  the  man  which 
nevertheless  divine  love  came  into  this  world  to  be 
and  was.  He  brought  his  human  holiness  along  with 
him  when  he  came ;  as  many  of  us  fancy  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  sent  before  mechanically  and  mirac- 
ulously to  prepare  it  for  him  in  our  flesh  before  he 
came,  lest  he  should  be  contaminated  by  contact 
with  human  unholiness — not  knowing  that  he  came 
himself  to  take  our  unholiness  and  make  us  holy,  to 
take  upon  him  our  defilement  and  make  us  clean. 
Not  of  course  to  take  it  in  himself,  but  upon  himself; 
he  took  our  sin  and  death  upon  him  in  assuming  our 
flesh ;  he  redeemed  us  from  sin  and  death  in  his  cru- 


1 92  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

cifixion  of  the  sin  and  resurrection  from  the  death  of 
our  flesh. 

A  reference  to  the  origin  and  motive  of  Apolli- 
narianism  will  throw  additional  light  upon  the  matter. 
Apollinaris  developed  his  system  in  opposition  partly 
to  the  Arianism  that  preceded  and  partly  to  the  Nes- 
torianism  that  was  to  succeed  him  "and  that  in  prin- 
ciple though  not  yet  in  historical  form  was  already 
beginning  to  appear.  In  opposing  Arianism  on  one 
side  Apollinaris  fell  unconsciously  into  its  error  on 
the  other.  To  Arms,  in  the  first  place,  our  Lord  was 
the  incarnation  of  a  superhuman  but  not  a  divine 
person,  and  secondly  he  was  incarnate  in  not  a  real 
humanity ;  his  whole  earthly  activity  was  that  of  the 
superhuman  and  not  of  a  human  being.  Apollinaris 
antagonizing  the  first  of  these  positions  fell  himself 
into  the  second.  He  demonstrates  the  natural  neces- 
sity of  an  incarnation  of  the  divine  Logos  or  Son 
himself;  but  he  conceives  his  incarnation  in  a  human- 
ity not  a  whit  more  actual  or  real  than  that  of  Arius. 
The  activity  of  our  Lord  is  solely  a  divine  one,  or 
human  only  in  so  far  as  there  is  an  aspect  of  human- 
ity in  the  divine  Logos  himself. 

We  shall  see  how  the  great  school  of  Antioch  had 
a  tendency  from  the  beginning  to  stand  for  the 
human  aspect  of  our  Lord,  as  that  of  Alexandria  did 
for  the  divine.  About  contemporaneously  with 
Apollinaris,  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  was  originating  those 
views  of  our  Lord's  person  which  in  the  beginning 
of  the  next  century  were  to  result  in  the  Nestorian 
heresy.  The  Antiochians  made  so  much  of  the  hu- 
manity of  our  Lord,  they  dwelt  so  much  especially 


Opposition  to  Nestorianism.  193 

upon  the  personal  elements  in  his  human  life,  as 
practically  and  with  some  of  them  actually  and  avow- 
edly to  make  him  a  human  person.  Now  our  Lord 
is  without  question  a  divine  person,  and  if  he  is  also 
a  human  person  then  he  is  a  conjunction  of  two  per- 
sons and  not  only-  one  person  in  two  natures.  This 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  dual  personality  of  our  Lord 
which  was  beginning  to  loom  up  and  of  which  Apol- 
linarianism  was  the  deadly  antagonist. 

To  Apollinaris  it  seemed  inevitable  that  if  we  con- 
cede to  our  Lord  a  complete  human  nature  in  the 
sense  of  not  only  body  and  soul  but  also  spirit,  if  we 
make  him  man  in  the  complete  sense  in  which  we 
are,  then  we  make  him  a  human  person  as  well  as  a 
divine  one  and  so  two  persons.  Moreover  if  he  is 
man  like  us,  then  he  has  a  human  and  a  free  will  and 
is  mutable  (rpenTOf)  or  capable  of  sin.  But  we  must 
think  not  only  of  the  Logos  but  of  his  humanity  as 
above  this,  and  of  the  redeeming  work  of  God  as  so 
divine  as  to  be  free  from  any  human  contingency 
or  possibility  of  miscarriage.  And  so,  to  avoid  any 
such  consequence,  he  lifts  up  the  humanity  into  the 
divinity ;  he  makes  it  in  itself  so  divine  that  there  is 
nothing  of  our  humanity  left  in  it  at  all — nothing  of 
the  humanity  which  our  Lord  actually  assumed  in 
order  that  he  might  purge  and  cleanse  it  by  himself 
and  present  it  to  himself  all-glorious,  without  spot  or 
wrinkle. 

We  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  motive  of  Apol- 
linaris was  not  a  right  one,  and  that  there  was  not  a 
necessity  for  something  to  be  done  to  conserve  the 
unity  of  our  Lord's  person ;  but  only  that  he  did  too 


194  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

much  and  went  too  far  on  the  other  side.  Though 
we  say  that  our  Lord  is  very  God  and  also  that  he  is 
very  man,  we  cannot  say  that  he  is  two.  We  might 
even  find  it  necessary  to  say  that  he  is  a  divine  per- 
son and  that  he  is  also  a  human  person  (which  is 
identical  with  saying  that  he  is  a  man,  or  to  speak 
of  the  man  Christ  Jesus) ;  but  we  cannot  mean  by 
that  that  he  is  two  persons  but  only  that  he  is  a  person 
who  is  both  divine  and  human,  and  personally  both ; 
that  is  that  he  is  one  person  in  two  natures  or  modes 
of  being.  To  Apollinaris  this  seemed  impossible ; 
two,  he  said,  cannot  be  one.  The  difficulty  is  a  very 
real  one  and  will  give  us  trouble  enough,  as  it  gave 
the  church  for  several  centuries  without  being  solved 
at  the  end  of  them.  But  Apollinaris's  mode  of  get- 
ting rid  of  it  will  do  no  better  than  the  old  Docetic 
expedient  of  denying  the  human  outright.  The  fact 
simply  is  that  the  actual  and  historical  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Christ  of  the  gospels  and  the  church,  was  a  man 
with  a  human  will  and  human  freedom,  who  by  the 
grace  of  God  through  his  human  faith  overcame  sin 
and  destroyed  death ;  and  so  redeemed  and  exalted 
human  nature  and  human  life  to  its  true  human  des- 
tiny of  oneness  with  God  and  eternal  life ;  and  in  his 
humanity  which  is  ours,  once  sinful  and  now  holy, 
once  dead  and  now  alive,  we  all  are  now  sanctified 
and  risen.  The  true  Christian  explanation  of  this 
act  and  fact  is,  that  as  it  is  human  so  also  is  it  divine, 
and  that  there  could  have  been  no  such  human  act 
that  was  not  divine ;  that  Jesus  Christ  as  man  so  re- 
alized or  exhibited  in  himself  the  divine  reality  of 
humanity  because  as  God  he  so  humanly  realized 


Tendency  to  Monophysitism.          195 

himself  in  humanity.  And  moreover  not  only  was 
the  complete  humanity  of  our  Lord  an  historical  fact, 
but  only  as  human  could  he  have  been  really  divine. 
God  fulfils  himself  in  and  not  instead  of  or  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  his  works,  whether  they  are  natural  or 
spiritual.  We  repeat  that  a  redeeming  God  only 
reveals  himself  in  redeemed  humanity. 

Of  course  according  to  Apollinaris  since  our  Lord 
brought  his  humanity  and  his  human  holiness  with  him 
into  the  world,  he  was  complete  from  the  first;  he 
had  no  real  infancy  or  growth ;  he  learned  nothing, 
acquired  nothing,  encountered  and  overcame  no  real 
temptation,  was  in  no  true  sense  made  perfect  by  the 
things  he  suffered  nor  really  touched  with  any  feel- 
ing of  our  infirmity.  He  may  have  been  perfect  God 
and  in  Apollinaris's  sense  perfect  man, — but  he  was 
no  perfecting  God  for  he  perfected  nothing,  nor  per- 
fected man  for  he  was  perfected  in  nothing.  But  to 
take  away  this  is  to  take  away  the  very  end  of  the 
divine  incarnation  and  all  the  meaning  of  human  re- 
demption and  completion  in  and  through  it. 

Apollinarianism  was  the  forerunner  of  all  the  Mo- 
nophysitism  of  the  succeeding  centuries.  In  deny- 
ing the  double  personality  he  denied  along  with  it 
the  double  nature  of  our  Lord.  The  eternal  divine- 
human  or  human-divine  of  the  Logos  in  his  view 
expresses  only  two  aspects  or  sides  of  a  single  nature, 
as  on  the  one  hand  it  comes  eternally  from  God  as 
its  origin,  and  on  the  other  looks  forward  to  human- 
ity as  its  end.  Jesus  Christ  is  throughout  one  per- 
son, one  nature,  one  activity,  not  the  atonement  and 
oneness  of  God  and  man. 


196  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

The  element  of  truth  in  Monophysitism  is  not  that 
the  divine  and  the  human  natures  even  in  our  Lord 
are  the  same;  that  the  divine  is  human  and  the 
human  divine,  as  Apollinaris  taught;  or  that  in  the 
union  they  become  the  same,  as  the  Monophysites 
taught ;  but  that  there  is  a  natural  relation  or  affinity 
between  them  which  predestinates  and  predetermines 
them  to  a  union  and  unity  of  the  two.  The  divine 
Logos  is  predestined  to  take  the  natural  and  the  hu- 
man into  himself  and  the  human  to  receive  the  divine 
of  the  Logos  into  itself.  It  is  the  nature  of  God  as 
love  and  fulness  to  communicate  and  fulfil  himself  in 
his  creation  as  it  becomes  capable  of  receiving  him. 
It  is  the  nature  of  man  as  creation's  crown  ofjsus- 
ceptibility  and  conscious  need  of  God  to  be  taken 
into  personal  and  free  union  and  unity  with  him. 
This  truth  had  been  seen  by  the  church  fathers  long 
before  Apollinaris;  by  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  and  Ath- 
anasius  especially.  Athanasius  speaks  much  of  an 
evuoH;  01WK77,  a  natural  unity,  of  the  divine  and  the 
human  in  Christ.  "  Bearing  the  image  of  the  Logos 
and  destined  for  him,  humanity  arrives  at  the  actual- 
ity of  its  possibility,  at  the  substance  of  its  form,  in  a 
word  at  its  perfection,  when  the  Logos  enters  into 
vital  unity  with  it."  "As  its  archetype,  one  aspect 
of  the  Logos'  own  essence  stood  in  affinity  with  hu- 
manity, and  called  for  manifestation  in  actuality. 
This  actuality  was  acquired  by  the  Logos  when  having 
connected  himself  with  the  man  Jesus  he  set  forth  in 
him  the  perfected  humanity.  Accordingly  the  Zvuoig 
$voiK7)  is  that  union  which  is  demanded  by  the  essence 
or  conception  of  both,  and  in  which  the  idea  of  both 


The  Humanity  not  yet  Defined.       197 

first  attains  realization; — humanity,  because  its  na- 
ture remained  imperfect,  its  creation  as  it  were  incom- 
plete, without  the  incarnation;  deity,  because  even 
its  nature,  to  wit,  its  ethical  nature,  could  not  satisfy 
itself  until  it  became  man  "  (Dorner,  on  Athanasius). 
The  difference  between  this  truth  and  Apollinarian- 
ism  is  that  while  according  to  the  former  the  divine 
and  human  come  naturally  to  union  in  the  earthly 
incarnation  of  the  Logos ;  according  to  the  latter  the 
divine  merely  brought  into  the  world,  in  a  Docetic 
and  unreal  incarnation,  an  ideal  humanity  which  it 
had  always  possessed. 

But  when  Apollinaris  presented  the  alternative  of 
his  own  view,  and  charged  that  a  whole  deity  and  a 
whole  humanity  in  Christ  were  two  and  could  by  no 
possibility  be  one,  and  not  only  two  natures  but  two 
persons, — the  theologians  of  the  fourth  century  were 
not  prepared  at  once  to  refute  this  by  presenting  the 
true  solution  of  this  new  difficulty.  They  had  reflec- 
tively vindicated  and  stated  the  divine  nature  and 
personality  of  the  Lord.  They  held,  as  yet  only  in- 
tuitively though  just  as  firmly,  the  true  humanity 
and  were  as  ready  to  affirm  it.  They  knew  that  he 
was  perfect  God  and  perfect  man,  but  how  to  combine 
the  two  natures  in  a  single  person  without  detriment 
to  either  was  not  the  task  of  that  century  but  of 
another,  and  much  more  than  another. 

It  was  natural  that  the  age  which  had  with  such 
ability  and  with  so  much  difficulty  and  suffering 
stood  for  the  side  of  the  real  divinity  of  the  Lord 
should  unconsciously  and  unintentionally  feel  and 
appreciate  less  the  importance,  in  its  details  as  well 


198  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

as  in  its  totality,  of  a  scientific  analysis  and  construc- 
tion of  the  real  humanity.  But  besides  this,  we  have 
seen  that  the  Greek  genius,  and  much  more  so  in 
Alexandria  than  in  Antioch,  predisposed  it  rather  to  the 
ideal  than  to  the  actual  and  practical  side  of  religious 
truth.  Christianity  was  naturally  to  the  Greek  much 
more  an  activity,  a  revelation,  of  God  in  man  than 
an  activity,  a  redemption  and  freedom,  of  man  in 
God.  He  was  more  disposed  therefore  to  dwell  upon 
what  God  was  and  did  than  upon  what  man  was  and 
did  in  Jesus  Christ.  The  theologians  of  the  fourth 
century,  filled  with  the  Trinitarian  questions  and 
decisions  and,  through  the  transcendent  influence  of 
Athanasius,  being  of  the  Alexandrian  rather  than 
the  Antiochian  temperament,  did  not  feel  all  the  dif- 
ficulties of  combining  a  real  humanity  with  the  real 
divinity  of  the  Lord.  Apollinaris  indeed  in  his  pre- 
mature and  one-sided  thought  was  only  exposing  a 
tendency  which  existed  in  themselves,  though  they 
did  not  permit  it  to  run  into  heretical  expression  and 
condemned  it  when  it  did  so  in  him.  For  while  they 
held  the  real  humanity  as  a  whole,  they  were  uncon- 
sciously not  holding  it  in  all  its  details  or  in  all  the 
parts  that  were  necessary  to  the  integrity  of  the 
whole.  Jesus  Christ  was  God  and  man,  but  he  was 
with  them,  too,  so  overpoweringly  and  controllingly 
God  that  he  was  very  infinitesimally  man.  The  hu- 
manity in  the  Godhead  was  as  a  drop  of  honey  in 
the  ocean.  In  the  overwhelming  self-fulfilment  of 
God  in  man  there  was  very  little  self-realization  of 
man  in  God.  The  human  consciousness,  will  and 


Christianity  more  than  a  Revelation.  199 

freedom,  the  human  becoming-divine  of  the  man 
Christ  Jesus,  all  but  disappear  in  the  omnipotent  and 
irresistible  becoming-man  of  the  divine  person.  But, 
as  we  have  so  often  said,  God  does  not  really  be- 
come man,  he  only  remains  himself,  in  a  manhood 
which  does  not  also  itself  humanly,  freely  and  person- 
ally become  divine.  It  is  not  in  the  material  body 
but  in  the  human  will  and  freedom,  in  the  human 
righteousness  and  life,  of  Jesus  Christ  that  the  Logos 
most  truly  and  savingly  incarnates  himself.  No  mat- 
ter what  the  danger  of  falling  into  the  error  of  a  dual 
personality,  or  the  difficulty  of  ascribing  to  our  one 
Lord  the  whole  activity  of  God  and  the  whole  activ- 
ity of  man,  we  must  not  get  over  it  by  making  hu- 
man salvation  any  less  an  act  of  man  in  God  than  an 
act  of  God  in  man. 

Christianity  may  be  viewed  as  a  revelation  of  God 
in  man;  or  it  may  be  viewed  as  an  actualization  or 
realization  of  God  in  man.  If  the  first  aspect  is  dwelt 
upon  too  exclusively,  the  part  of  the  man  in  it  will 
be  made  too  little  of.  It  will  be  even  of  secondary 
or  no  importance  that  the  man,  the  humanity,  shall 
be  a  real  one  at  all,  if  only  the  revelation  is  made,  or 
the  idea  conveyed.  But  the  end  of  God  in  Christ  is 
not  to  show  God  but  to  save  man ;  it  is  not  even  the 
truth  of  God  except  as  the  means  to  the  redemption, 
freedom  and  life  of  man.  What  God  has  done  in 
Christ  is  to  be  read  simply  and  solely  in  what  man 
has  become  in  Christ. 

In  saying  that  Athanasius  and  his  school,  which 
means  the  theology  of  the  fourth  century,  repre- 


2OO  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

sented  this  tendency  to  the  ideal  rather  than  to  the 
actual,  to  the  divine  rather  than  the  human,  side  of 
the  incarnation,  we  are  only  saying  that  they  did  not 
work  out  both  sides  of  the  truth  with  equal  clearness 
and  thoroughness;  that  something  remained  to  be 
done  by  others. 


CHAPTER  X. 

NESTORIANISM. 

[HE  theology  which  Apollinaris  had  ap- 
prehended and  in  part  anticipated  was 
not  long  in  making  its  appearance.  In- 
deed it  was  already  in  suspense  and  was 
immediately  precipitated  by  his  attack. 
Nestorianism  and  Apollinarianism  are  simply  the  op- 
posite extremes  in  the  Christian  thought  we  have 
been  endeavoring  to  depict,  and  are  each  only  the 
denial  of  the  other.  We  shall  find  after  this  that 
every  attempt  to  discriminate  the  human  from  the 
divine  in  the  person  of  the  Lord  is  liable  to  be 
branded  with  Nestorianism ;  and  every  effort  to  em- 
phasize the  unity  of  the  human  with  the  divine,  with 
Apollinarianism.  And  this,  because  Nestorius  did 
undoubtedly  divide  the  aspects  to  the  destruction  of 
a  real  unity,  as  Apollinaris  united  them  to  the  efface- 
ment  of  any  real  distinction. 

Nestorianism  had  as  to  its  origin  and  development 
comparatively  little  to  do  with  Nestorius,  in  whose 
person  it  was  afterward  condemned  and  by  whose 
name  it  has  become  known.  It  had  been  slowly 
growing  for  a  long  time  in  a  congenial  soil.  And  we 
must  see  in  its  origination  quite  as  true  and  necessary 

201 


202  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

a  motive  as  we  discovered  in  Apollinarianism,  though 
it  resulted  in  quite  as  wide  an  error  and  heresy. 
Indeed  we  shall  find  its  motive  just  in  an  exag- 
geration of  the  objections  which  in  behalf  of  the 
church  itself  we  have  already  presented  to  the  sys- 
tem of  Apollinarianism. 

The  two  great  patriarchates  of  the  East,  before 
they  were  both  overshadowed  by  Constantinople, 
seemed  to  be  naturally  constituted  to  represent  the 
opposite  interests  of  Christianity.  We  have  seen 
how  from  the  first  Alexandria  made  itself  the  repre- 
sentative and  champion  of  the  divinity,  while  Antioch 
quite  as  consistently  espoused  the  cause  of  the  hu- 
manity of  the  Lord.  The  characteristics  of  the  two 
schools  quite  remarkably  fitted  them  for  these  oppo- 
site functions.  The  temper  of  Antioch  was  scientific 
and  rational ;  it  seized  upon  the  human  and  natural 
elements  of  Christianity  and  saw  in  it  the  meaning 
and  truth  of  man  and  of  the  world.  That  of  Alex- 
andria was  spiritual,  intuitive  and  theological ;  to  it 
Christianity  was  the  revelation  and  manifestation  of 
God.  The  difference  was  best  shown  in  their  meth- 
ods of  biblical  interpretation.  The  exegesis  of  Old 
and  New  Testaments  which  was  the  forte  and  pride 
of  the  great  teachers  of  Antioch  was  literal,  gram- 
matical and  historical ;  the  exposition  of  Clement, 
Origen  and  their  successors  in  Alexandria  was  alle- 
gorical and  mystical.  At  Antioch  the  question  was, 
what  did  the  human  authors  intend  to  say ;  at  Alex- 
andria what  did  the  Holy  Ghost  mean  to  convey. 

It  would  be  unjust  to  claim  that  Apollinaris  repre- 
sented the  Alexandrian  school,  but  he  did  represent 


The  School  of  Antioch.  203 

their  side  or  tendency  carried  to  its  extreme.  That 
extreme  was  to  represent  Jesus  Christ  as  essentially 
divine,  with  certain  human  predicates  which  however 
fell  very  far  short  of  a  complete  and  real  humanity. 
The  opposite  or  Antiochian  extreme  was  to  represent 
him  as  essentially  human,  with  certain  divine  predicates 
which  fell  equally  short  of  a  real  and  personal  deity. 
The  school  of  Antioch  culminated  at  the  close  of 
the  fourth  century,  after  Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  in  his 
great  pupil  and  disciple  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  re- 
garded in  the  East  as  the  greatest  of  biblical  scholars 
and  commentators,  and  the  real  founder  so  far  as 
there  was  one  of  the  organized  tendency  which  was 
to  become  known  as  Nestorianism.  When  we  say 
that  any  sincerely  and  genuinely  Christian  theologian 
— as  undoubtedly  Apollinaris  and  Theodore  were,  on 
opposite  sides, — represented  one  side  of  the  com- 
mon truth  of  Christianity,  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  that 
he  consciously  denied  the  other.  This  is  especially 
true  at  that  time  of  the  very  inception  of  Christolog- 
ical  science,  when  although  there  was  a  church  truth 
there  was  not  yet  a  church  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ.  But  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  no  the- 
ology could  have  originated  within  the  church  which 
did  not  intend  to  hold,  and  believe  itself  to  hold,  the 
reality  of  both  the  divinity  and  the  humanity  in  a 
real  incarnation.  We  only  mean  to  illustrate  the  fact 
that  nothing  short  of  a  catholic  doctrine,  a  doctrine 
of  the  mind  of  the  church  as  a  whole,  could  be  broad 
enough  and  comprehensive  enough  to  embrace  at 
once  on  all  its  sides  the  totality  of  the  truth  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  that  prior  to  such  a  doctrine  no  one  the- 


2O4  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

ologian  did  or  could  so  hold  the  whole  truth  as  not 
unconsciously  to  deny  or  mutilate  some  one  part  in 
the  supposed  interest  of  some  other  part.  If  Athana- 
sius  himself,  who  could  so  clearly  see  and  so  exactly 
define  the  divinity  of  the  Lord  and  who  unquestion- 
ably equally  affirmed  his  humanity,  had  undertaken 
to  define  the  latter  also  in  terms  of  the  then  know- 
ledge of  it,  in  all  its  essential  elements  and  details,  he 
certainly  would  not  have  done  it  to  the  permanent 
satisfaction  of  the  Christian  consciousness.  He  and 
his  contemporaries,  holding  it  in  its  unresolved  to- 
tality, wisely  left  its  analysis  and  definition  to  be 
worked  out  as  it  was  in  the  church's  gradual  and 
wise  rejection  of  the  opposite  errors  and  reconcilia- 
tion of  the  opposite  truths  of  Apollinarianism  and 
Nestorianism ;  just  as  their  own  Trinitarianism  had 
been  the  outcome  of  the  long  struggle  between  the 
opposing  principles  of  Sabellianism  and  Arianism. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  then  approached  the  ques- 
tion of  our  Lord's  person  from  the  Antiochian,  that 
is  to  say  from  the  human  side.  As  Apollinaris  had 
undertaken  to  show  how  the  incarnate  Logos  is  man, 
so  Theodore  undertook  to  show  how  the  man  Christ 
Jesus  is  God.  And  with  the  widest  differences  their 
methods  are  similar  in  one  respect.  Apollinaris 
proves  an  inherent  and  eternal  humanity  in  the  deity 
of  the  Logos,  Theodore  establishes  an  essential  and 
natural  divinity  in  the  humanity  of  the  man  Jesus 
Christ.  His  anthropology  is  peculiar  and  must  be 
somewhat  understood  in  explanation  of  his  Christol- 
ogy.  In  a  somewhat  modernized  form  we  may  give 
its  substance  as  follows : 


Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  205 

The  whole  creation  is  naturally  to  culminate  in 
man,  who  is  not  only  its  head  but  who  recapitulates, 
reconciles  and  unifies  it  all  in  himself,  as  its  summary 
or  epitome.  As  in  him  spirit  and  matter  apparently 
so  opposite  and  contradictory  unite  in  one  human 
nature,  so  it  was  natural  that  all  the  contrarieties  of 
the  whole  universe  should  eventually  meet  and  be 
reconciled  in  him,  in  an  all-comprehending  unity. 
Indeed  in  him  the  infinite  and  the  finite,  eternity 
and  time,  God  and  the  creation,  were  met  and  were 
destined  to  be  harmonized.  Man  is  by  nature  the 
cosmic  god,  the  image  and  likeness  of  the  absolute 
and  hypercosmic  God.  But  he  was  all  this  not 
merely  physically  and  naturally  but  spiritually  and 
morally ;  and  so  he  was  to  become  it  not  by  a  merely 
natural  and  necessary  evolution  but  in  the  exercise 
and  development  of  his  personal  and  free  spirit.  In 
other  words,  man's  place  and  part  in  the  world  as  its 
natural  bond  and  unity  was  to  be  accomplished  by  a 
process  in  which  humanity  was  spiritually  as  well  as 
physically  at  once  to  realize  itself  and  the  whole  cre- 
ation in  itself.  In  this  humanity  had  failed,  and  its 
failure  to  accomplish  its  natural  high  function  and 
destiny  is  sin,  which  breaks  up  the  harmony  of  the 
universe  and  reduces  everything  to  discord  and  con- 
tradiction. As  the  bondage  of  creation  came  through 
man's  sin,  so  its  freedom  can  be  restored  only  through 
man's  redemption  from  sin.  But  man's  redemption, 
while  it  can  come  only  from  God,  can  come  only 
through  and  in  himself  and  can  consist  only  in  the 
restoration  of  the  freedom  and  ability  of  his  own  will 
and  personality  to  discharge  his  function  by  realizing 


206  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

himself  and  completing  and  perfecting  the  world. 
Only  man,  the  cosmic  god,  himself  restored  and 
completed,  can  restore  and  complete  the  cosmos  in 
the  image  and  likeness  of  the  absolute  God.  There- 
fore when  the  heavenly  Logos,  whose  earthly  image 
man  is,  comes  down  to  redeem  and  restore  him,  his 
presence  and  operation  in  him  are  not  at  the  expense 
of  the  freedom  or  the  personality  or  personal  activity 
of  the  man;  for  these  are  just  what  he  is  come  to 
restore. 

The  Logos,  according  to  Theodore,  might  be  con- 
ceived as  entering  into  man  in  Jesus  Christ  either 
icar'  dvaiav,  or  «ar'  Ivepyeiav,  or  narj  ivdoiciar, — either 
by  natural  or  essential  union,  or  by  union  of  power 
and  operation,  or  by  personal  union  or  the  free  union 
and  unity  of  spirits  and  wills.  The  first  is  impossi- 
ble ;  the  infinite  and  omnipresent  essence  and  nature 
of  God  cannot  be  contracted  to  that  of  a  man.  It 
cannot  be  the  second,  for  the  power  and  activity  of 
God  are  in  all  things  and  this  would  not  distinguish 
Christ  from  all  other  persons  and  things.  It  can 
only  be  the  third,  the  union  of  the  divine  good  will 
and  satisfaction  with  the  perfect  faith  and  holy  obe- 
dience of  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  The  union  therefore 
of  God  and  man,  the  divine  Logos  and  his  human 
image,  in  Jesus  Christ  is  a  union  of  wills,  of  spirits, 
of  personalities.  Human  personality  must  not  be 
obliterated  and  supplanted  in  Jesus  Christ;  it  must 
be  redeemed  and  completed  by  the  restoration  to  it 
of  its  freedom,  power  and  efficiency.  The  human  in 
Christ  is  not  simply  a  predicate  or  quality  of  the  di- 
vine, it  is  something  in  itself ;  the  divine  in  it  is  not 


Our  Lord's  Dual  Personality.        207 

instead  of  it  but  for  the  sake  of  it,  not  to  diminish 
but  to  increase  it.  "  I  am  come  that  ye  may  have 
life,  and  that  ye  may  have  it  more  abundantly." 
The  human  in  our  Lord  is  therefore  above  all  things 
personal  and  free  and  complete.  Whether  or  not 
it  might  have  been  possible  for  Theodore  to  pre- 
serve the  essential  and  vital  truth  in  his  system  with- 
out involving  a  duality  of  persons  in  his  conception 
of  our  Lord,  he  certainly  did  not  succeed  in  doing 
so.  It  seemed  to  him  vital  that  our  Lord  should  be 
a  human  person,  a  man  in  whom  humanity  should 
recover  its  place  and  function  in  the  world  and  so 
restore  or  attain  the  unity,  harmony  and  consumma- 
tion of  the  universe.  With  the  man  Jesus  Christ 
through  whom  this  was  to  be  accomplished,  the 
Logos,  whose  image  or  cosmic  self  he  was  to  be, 
united  himself,  became  one ;  not,  as  we  have  said, 
ovoia, — so  as  himself  to  become  homoousion  with  us, 
— nor  ivEpyiia,  by  mere  operation  in  him  ;  but  IvdoKia, 
by  the  spiritual  and  moral  unity  of  consenting  and 
harmonious  wills  and  spirits.  The  Logos  did  not  lit- 
erally become  flesh  or  man,  but  only  figuratively  did 
so  in  that  he  entered  into  a  spiritual  and  moral  union 
and  unity  with  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  The  man  was 
not  the  Logos  but  only  one  with  him,  and  the  Logos 
was  not  the  man  but  only  one  with  him.  Spiritually 
and  morally  they  were  one  person,  essentially  they 
were  two  persons,  a  divine  and  a  human,  become  one 
in  will  and  act.  Not  otherwise  than  thus  did  it  seem 
possible  to  Theodore  to  preserve  in  the  unity  of  the 
incarnation  the  necessary  freedom,  completeness  and 
relative  independence  of  the  human  factor.  In  this 


208  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

way  the  distinction  of  the  two  factors  is  most  cer- 
tainly obtained ;  whether  it  was  not  at  the  price  of  the 
loss  of  their  unity  there  can  be  with  us  no  question ; 
but  we  need  not  doubt,  indeed  no  one  acquainted 
with  Theodore  himself  can  doubt,  that  he  believed 
himself  to  have  secured  that  too  and  to  hold  the 
catholic  doctrine. 

Of  course  the  difficulty  begins  when  we  ask  our- 
selves who  and  what  this  particular  human  person  is 
who  was  to  be  one  with  the  divine  Person,  and 
through  whom  humanity  and  the  whole  creation 
were  to  be  restored  to  unity  and  harmony.  It  was 
necessary  that  it  should  be  a  person,  and_  that  God 
should  foreknow  that  it  would  be,  who  would  as 
freely  and  yet  as  infallibly  unite  himself  or  be  united 
with  the  Logos  as  the  Logos  with  him  ;  for  the  union 
begins  in  and  is  perfect  from  the  moment  of  the  con- 
ception in  the  womb,  and  yet  is  throughout  free  on 
both  sides  and  the  act  of  both  persons.  If  the 
human  person  is  truly  human  he  must  have  a  human 
growth  and  progress  under  human  laws  and  condi- 
tions, and  must  continuously  himself  will  to  be  one 
with  the  Logos,  as  the  Logos  wills  to  be  one  with 
him.  In  this  way  human  salvation  is  not  only  a 
double  act,  but  the  act  of  two  persons  willing  and 
acting  as  one.  If  we  ask  how  it  was  that  this  espe- 
cial person  was  thus  enabled  from  the  first  and  all 
throughout  to  be  one  with  the  Logos  and  so  to  effect 
human  redemption,  Theodore's  answer  was  that  in 
the  fact  of  his  miraculous  birth  there  was  imparted 
to  him  the  advantage  of  a  special  fitness  or  affinity, 
without  impairment  of  his  real  humanity  and  free- 


A   Gnomic  Unify.  209 

dom ;  and  that  his  union  with  the  Logos  and  fulness 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  insured  the  rest. 

It  is  clear  enough  from  the  foregoing  representa- 
tion that  Theodore  held  not  only  that  our  Lord  was 
two  distinct  natures  but  was  two  distinct  persons, — 
the  eternal  Logos  or  Son  and  a  man  specially  con- 
stituted not  merely  to  be  his  visible  organ  and  mani- 
festation but  to  enter  freely  and  personally  into  union 
and  conjunction  with  him.  The  term  ovvdfata,  by 
which  he  expressed  this  not  one-sided  but  mutual 
and  free  conjunction,  was  intended  to  affirm  that  God 
did  not  "  become  "  but  entered  into  union  with  man, 
and  that  personal  humanity  was  as  much  as  personal 
deity  a  party  in  the  union.  As  marriage  makes  two 
persons  one  flesh,  so  in  the  incarnation  of  which  mar- 
riage is  but  a  faint  reflection  and  symbol  the  Logos 
and  the  man  become  one  person.  But  it  is  a  union 
not  substantialiter  but  spiritualiter ;  not  dvaia  or  Qvaei, 
but  yvwjug  or  oxeaei,  by  mutual  disposition,  affinity 
and  consent. 

Of  course  Theodore  made  every  effort  to  minimize 
the  duality  and  to  emphasize  the  practical  unity  of 
the  person  of  Christ.  In  fact  it  is  only  in  such  an 
analysis  of  the  ultimate  constituents  of  his  system 
that  the  duality  appears.  In  his  voluminous  works 
and  the  general  teaching  of  the  school  nothing  more 
would  appear  than  a  distinct  emphasis  of  the  human 
significance  of  the  life  and  work  of  the  Lord.  The 
school  of  Antioch  believed  itself  to  be  asserting  the 
catholic  view  of  the  incarnation  against  Apollinari- 
anism  in  which  the  human  element  was  reduced  to 
nothing.  And  during  the  life  and  very  wide  activity 


2io  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

of  Theodore  no  charge  was  made  by  the  church 
against  his  teaching,  although  it  was  so  broadly  dis- 
seminated as  to  gain  him  the  title  of  Magister  Ori- 
entis.  He  was  the  intimate  and  dear  friend  to  the 
last  of  the  great  Chrysostom,  who  was  of  Antioch 
and  of  the  same  school.  Theodore's  studies  and 
teaching  were  primarily  exegetical,  and  the  image  of 
the  human  Jesus  of  the  gospels,  in  its  every  trait  and 
detail,  in  the  simplicity  and  reality  of  his  very  and 
complete  manhood,  was  the  starting-point  of  all  his 
thinking;  that  Jesus  was  more  and  not  less  man  by 
reason  of  his  union  with  the  Logos  was  the  principle 
of  his  Christology.  To  him  practically  if  not  essen- 
tially Christ  was  one  person ;  he  thought  of  him  not 
as  mere  divine  Logos  nor  as  mere  human  Jesus  but 
as  the  two  become  one  in  the  one  will  and  activity 
of  the  Christ  who  is  at  once  Logos  and  Jesuq,  God 
and  man.  It  is  unnecessary  to  enter  into  further 
criticism  of  Theodore's  position  until  we  get  to  the 
time  when  the  church  was  forced  by  the  progress  of 
Christological  science  to  take  it  up  and  analyze  it, 
and  to  pass  judgment  upon  it.  We  can  see  now  at 
once  both  the  right  motive  in  it  and  its  final  "and 
utter  unsatisfactoriness  and  untenableness. 

Theodore  did  not  seriously  object  to  the  applica- 
tion to  the  mother  of  the  Lord  of  the  term  "  Theo- 
tocos,"  the  point  upon  which  later  the  whole  issue 
was  made  and  the  principle  involved  analyzed  and 
exposed.  He  admitted  a  limited  communicatio  idi- 
omatum  by  which,  in  consequence  of  the  closeness  of 
the  union  and  the  practical  oneness  of  the  Logos  and 
the  man,  the  predicates  of  one  could  be  applied  to 


St.  John  Chrysostom.  211 

the  other  and  we  might  say  that  God  was  born 
and  suffered  and  died ;  but  he  deprecated  the  grow- 
ing custom  of  employing  such  language,  which  he 
thought  strained  and  savoring  more  of  Apollinari- 
anism  than  truth.  Practically  the  person  born  of  the 
Virgin  might  be  called  God,  but  essentially  he  was 
not  God  and  the  Virgin  was  not  Theotocos,  mother 
of  God.  More  exactly  she  should  be  called  Christo- 
tocos,  though  literally  she  was  only  anthropotocos, 
mother  of  the  human  nature  and  personality  in  Christ. 

It  was  wholly  through  the  enormous  and  wide- 
spread influence  and  popularity  of  Theodore,  whom 
all  the  East  called  master  and  believed  as  he  believed, 
that  the  subsequently  condemned  and  generally 
abandoned  Nestorianism  yet  maintained  such  a  hold 
in  the  farther  Orient  that  it  continued  for  a  long 
time  to  overshadow  the  true  faith  and  has  perpet- 
uated at  least  its  name  to  our  own  times. 

It  was  in  the  year  381 — that  of  the  Second  Gen- 
eral Council — that  John,  to  be  known  afterward  as 
Chrysostom,  was  ordained  deacon  in  Antioch  his 
native  city,  where  during  the  next  fifteen  or  more 
years  he  established  that  astonishing  reputation  as  a 
preacher  from  which  he  received  his  name.  In  398 
Chrysostom  was  forcibly  removed  from  Antioch 
where  he  was  idolized  and  consecrated  bishop  of 
Constantinople.  Chrysostom  and  Theodore  were 
fellow-students,  first  under  the  great  heathen  sophist 
and  rhetorician  Libanius  and  afterward  under  Dio- 
dorus  bishop  of  Tarsus,  the  founder  of  the  later 
school  of  Antioch.  Under  him  they  both,  we  are 
told,  "  learned  the  common-sense  mode  e>f  interpret- 


212  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

ing  Holy  Scripture  (rejecting  the  allegorizing  princi- 
ple) of  which  they  became  such  distinguished  repre- 
sentatives." "  It  is  as  an  expositor  of  Scripture  that 
Chrysostom  is  most  deservedly  celebrated.  His 
method  of  dealing  with  the  divine  Word  is  charac- 
terized by  the  sound  grammatical  and  historical 
principle  and  the  healthy  common  sense  introduced 
by  his  tutor  Diodorus,  which  mark  the  exegetical 
school  of  Antioch.  He  seeks  not  what  the  passage 
before  him  may  be  made  to  mean,  but  what  it  was 
intended  to  mean ;  not  what  recondite  truths  or  les- 
sons may  be  forced  from  it  by  mystical  or  allegorical 
interpretations,  but  what  it  was  intended  to  convey ; 
not  what  may  be  introduced  into  it  but  what  may  be 
elicited  from  it."  Chrysostom  was  not  a  theologian 
in  the  sense  of  having  constructed  any  system  of  his 
own ;  he  was  a  preacher  and  an  expositor.  And  we 
do  not  know  at  all  that  his  Christology  was  that  of 
Theodore,  whose  practical  spirit  prevailed  much  more, 
happily,  than  his  speculative  errors,  as  we  shall  find 
in  his  successor  Theodoret.  Perhaps  he  did  not  go 
so  deeply  into  the  analysis  of  the  grounds  upon  which 
he  held  the  real  humanity  as  also  the  real  divinity  of 
the  Lord.  But  in  his  temper  and  teaching  he  was, 
behind  the  ardor  of  the  orator  and  the  outward  occu- 
pations of  a  practical  administrator,  most  certainly  an 
Antiochian.  Chrysostom's  difficult,  active  and  pain- 
ful administration  of  the  see  of  Constantinople  was 
terminated  by  his  overthrow  and  exile.  And  after  an 
interval  under  other  successors  of  some  twenty  years, 
during  which  the  memory  and  influence  of  his  great- 
ness and  holiness  had  deeply  impressed  itself,  his  seat 


Nestorius.  213 

there  was,  less  fortunately  or  happily,  filled  by  an- 
other representative  of  the  school  of  Antioch,  Nesto- 
rius a  pupil  and  disciple  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia. 

Nestorius  was  of  the  personal  disposition  and  was 
now  in  a  position  to  bring  forward  and  obtrude  upon 
the  general  view,  in  the  most  aggressive  way,  the 
principles  which  had  peacefully  pervaded  the  patri- 
archate of  Antioch.  He  was  zealous  for  orthodoxy, 
as  he  believed,  and  uniformity ;  and  he  lost  no  time 
in  setting  about  enforcing  them.  In  his  very  first 
sermon  he  boldly  addressed  the  emperor  in  an  appeal 
to  cooperate  with  him  to  that  end :  "  Give  me,  O 
prince,  the  earth  purged  of  heretics,  and  I  will  give 
you  heaven  as  a  recompense."  Whereupon,  with  or 
without  the  emperor,  there  ensued  a  general  suppres- 
sion and  expulsion  of  Arians,  Novatians,  Quartodeci- 
mans,  Macedonians,  and  so  on.  Under  the  term 
"  orthodoxy,"  Nestorius  was  ambitious  to  extend  and 
make  universal  the  principles  of  his  master  Theodore 
and  had  brought  with  him  as  his  chaplain  a  theologian 
of  Antioch,  more  zealous  and  perhaps  more  learned 
than  himself.  To  this  man,  Anastasius,  and  to  Nes- 
torius the  prevailing  church  doctrine  outside  of  the 
influence  of  Antioch  seemed  to  be  mere  Apollinari- 
anistn,  with  which  it  was  necessary  to  make  some 
decided  and  positive  issue  in  behalf  of  the  truth  of 
the  church. 

The  issue  was  joined  and  the  gauntlet  publicly 
thrown  down  by  Anastasius  in  a  discourse  in  the  ca- 
thedral in  which  he  exclaimed:  "Let  no  man  call 
Mary  Theotocos,  for  Mary  was  but  a  woman  and  it 
is  impossible  that  God  should  be  born  of  a  woman." 


214  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

The  new  position  thus  enunciated  was  publicly  in- 
dorsed, defended  and  expanded  by  the  bishop  himself 
in  a  series  of  sermons. 

The  point  made  was  intended  for  the  whole  church, 
and  so  the  whole  church  came  not  merely  to  investi- 
gate the  propriety  or  impropriety  of  the  title  "  Theo- 
tocos,"  but  gradually  to  call  into  question  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  the  theology  of  Antioch.  The 
term  "Theotocos"  was  by  no  means  a  new  one;  it 
had  had  the  very  highest  sanction  for  its  use  in  the 
church  and  was  familiar  everywhere.  To  the  theolo- 
gians of  the  Alexandrian  school  it  was  very  expressive 
as  emphasizing  the  divine  personality  of  the  Lord. 
It  was  naturally  distasteful  to  those  of  Antioch,  as  at 
least  an  exaggeration  and  as  ignoring  or  denying  the 
human  personality.  In  addition  to  its  important 
bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  person  of  Christ 
it  had  become  more  popular  through  the  growing 
veneration  and  worship  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  whose 
person  and  office  it  magnified.  For  this  reason  and 
in  the  interest  of  peace  and  harmony  Theodore  had 
withheld  any  objection  to  its  use,  contenting  himself 
with  what  he  deemed  the  necessary  explanations. 
Nestorius  however  evidently  thought  that  the  time 
was  past  for  compromise,  and  on  this  word  the  issue 
was  made  and  the  battle  of  the  Third  General  Council 
begun. 

The  challenge  was  quickly  accepted  on  the  other 
side,  and  just  where  and  as  might  have  been  expected. 
The  battle-field  was  Constantinople  but  the  contes- 
tants were  the  two  rival  patriarchates.  Indeed  there 
had  been  an  old  contention  between  them  for  the 


The  Counter- School  of  Alexandria.   215 

control  of  the  potent  influence  of  the  Eastern  capital. 
It  had  been  their  interference  in  its  affairs,  their  at- 
tempts to  influence  its  episcopal  successions  and  their 
meddling  with  its  disputes  which  probably  influenced 
the  action  of  the  Second  General  Council  in  giving  it 
precedence  over  them.  But  that  did  not  at  once 
mend  the  evil.  On  the  occasion  of  the  appointment 
of  John  Chrysostom,  Theophilus  the  overbearing  and 
violent  bishop  of  Alexandria  had  had  his  candidate, 
and  was  only  brought  by  imperial  compulsion  to  take 
his  part  in  the  consecration  of  an  appointee  from 
Antioch.  He  soon  after  placed  himself  at  the  head 
of  the  opposition  which  was  gathering  against  the 
high  policy  and  strict  discipline  of  Chrysostom,  and 
devoted  the  energies  of  a  most  determined  character 
to  compassing  his  downfall.  He  was  indeed  person- 
ally discomfited  and  defeated  and  escaped  only  by 
flight  the  wrath  of  the  people  of  Constantinople, 
whither  he  never  ventured  again.  But  his  intrigues 
continued  and  contributed  no  little  to  the  overthrow 
in  the  end  of  the  great  preacher,  saint  and  bishop ;  of 
whom  Theophilus  in  his  partisan  blindness  was  capable 
of  believing,  and  saying  in  a  public  invective :  "  He 
was  not  what  he  seemed  to  be  ;  his  guilt  transcended 
all  possible  penalties ;  in  the  world  to  come  he  will 
endure  an  eternal  penalty.  .  .  .  Christ  himself  will 
condemn  him  to  be  cast  into  outer  darkness." 

Theophilus  had  been  succeeded  in  Alexandria  by 
his  nephew  Cyril,  who  in  his  youth  had  been  with  him 
in  Constantinople  in  the  prosecution  of  his  proceeding 
against  Chrysostom,  and  had  inherited  as  he  carried 
with  him  through  life  his  uncle's  hostile  judgment  of 


2i6  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

the  great  preacher.  Cyril's  own  intemperance  and 
intolerance  had  certainly  not  in  the  earlier  years  of 
his  episcopate  fallen  short  of  his  predecessors'.  His 
connection  with  the  excesses  and  outrages  mutually 
inflicted  and  suffered  between  the  Christians  and  the 
heathen  and  Jewish  population  of  Alexandria,  and 
especially  those  associated  with  the  name  of  the  phi- 
losopher Hypatia,  is  familiar  matter  of  history.  And 
though  the  exact  degree  of  his  complicity  or  respon- 
sibility will  never  be  known  and  possibly  has  been  ex- 
aggerated, enough  is  known  to  indicate  his  spirit  and 
temper.  A  change  for  the  worse  had  assuredly  come 
over  the  successors  of  Clement  and  Origen  and  of 
Alexander  and  Athanasius.  The  spirit  of  tolerance 
and  charity,  of  moderation  and  sympathy,  had  been 
succeeded  by  one  of  keen,  fierce,  vindictive  and  not 
over-scrupulous  orthodoxy. 

The  truth  of  history  requires  that  this  should  be 
said,  and  we  cannot  shut  our  eyes  to  the  ample  and 
sad  illustrations  of  it  in  the  events  that  are  to  follow. 
But  even  in  those  events,  in  which  the  ordinary  and 
earthly  eye  detects  only  the  play  of  the  bitter  and 
bad  passions  of  men,  we  can  see  if  we  look  deeply 
enough  the  logical  and  orderly  working  out  of  the 
most  divine  and  human  issues  and  interests.  Nesto- 
rius  and  Cyril,  Antioch  and  Alexandria,  now  fairly 
pitted  against  each  other,  may  represent  very  much 
of  the  merest  jealousies  and  bitternesses  of  human 
strife ;  but  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  underneath  all 
this  the  two  parties  to  the  strife  were  each,  with  no 
little  faithfulness,  conscientiousness  and  ability,  rep- 
resenting a  vital  principle  at  that  moment  vitally  at 


Opposite  Points  of  View.  217 

stake  not  only  for  themselves  but  for  the  whole  world 
and  for  all  time.  The  question  of  the  divine  in  Jesus 
Christ  personally,  freely  and  fully  realizing  itself  in 
the  human,  and  at  the  same  time  of  the  human  freely 
and  fully  and  personally  realizing  itself  in  the  divine, 
is  no  trifling  one ;  in  it  is  focussed  and  brought  to  an 
issue  the  whole  question  of  the  divine-natural  and  the 
divine-human  constitution  of  the  world  and  of  man. 
It  is  true,  as  Irenaeus  said,  that  Jesus  Christ  "  in  se 
recapitulat  longam  dispositionem  hominis,"  and  not 
only  of  man  but  of  the  whole  creation.  To  know  him 
is  to  know  them,  for  it  is  to  see  them  in  God  and  God 
in  them.  Alexandria  had  developed  the  truth  of  God 
in  man.  Antioch  had  undertaken  and  was  ready  now 
to  submit  and  defend  its  attempt  to  develop  the  truth 
of  man  in  God.  Each  charged  the  other  with  its  error 
and  failed  to  see  its  truth.  It  was  charged  against 
one  side  that  it  taught  indeed  the  self-fulfilment  and 
revelation  of  God  in  man,  but  at  the  expense  of  the 
humanity  which  was  reduced  to  a  mere  visibility  or 
at  most  to  a  mere  instrument  or  organ  of  the  divine. 
Everything  distinctively  human,  human  knowledge, 
human  will,  human  freedom  and  character  and  activ- 
ity, human  personality,  were  absorbed  and  lost  in  the 
divine.  If  there  was  a  fulfilment  of  God  in  man  in 
all  this,  there  was  certainly  no  fulfilment  of  man  in 
God,  but  only  a  complete  supplanting  and  obliteration 
of  him. 

Against  the  other  on  the  contrary  it  was  charged 
that  its  preservation  of  the  human  was  through  denial 
of  any  real  being  in  it  of  the  divine.  The  so-called 
incarnation  was  not  God  in  man  at  all,  but  only  God 


218  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

with  man ;  it  was  an  external  personal  relation  and 
not  an  internal  personal  identity,  a  owdfaia  and  not 
an  evuKHf.  In  principle  the  Logos  was  no  more  Christ 
or  Christ  the  Logos  than  other  men;  he  was  only 
more  closely  associated  with  him  through  the  superior 
faith  and  piety  of  that  particular  man.  The  incarna- 
tion was  thus  nullified  to  save  the  humanity  from 
being  absorbed  and  lost  in  the  divinity.  The  Logos 
and  Christ  were  not  really  one  but  continued  two; 
and  no  sanctification  of  a  man  however  complete  can 
make  him  an  object  of  our  adoration  and  worship  or 
constitute  him  all  men's  redemption  and  salvation. 
At  most  he  can  be  to  us  an  illustration  and  example 
of  human  salvation. 

Matters  had  got  to  the  point  where  each  side  could 
see  the  deficiency  or  the  error  of  the  other,  but  not 
to  that  at  which  the  truth  of  both  sides  could  be 
successfully  embraced  in  a  common  statement.  It  is 
possible  to  hold  as  the  church  did  that  God  is  com- 
plete in  man  and  man  is  complete  in  God  in  the  one 
person  of  Jesus  Christ,  without  at  all  realizing  the 
difficulty  of  practically  carrying  out  into  detail  that 
double  truth  in  its  integrity  on  both  sides.  It  is 
very  certain  that  there  was  a  real,  and  a  very  im- 
portant and  difficult  issue  raised  between  Cyril  and 
Nestorius.  And  it  was  only  an  accident  that  it  was 
raised  by  them  in  particular ;  it  would  have  come  in- 
evitably without  them  at  about  the  same  time  and  in 
about  the  same  way. 

There  were,  as  always,  agents  from  Alexandria  in 
Constantinople,  and  no  sooner  had  Nestorius  thrown 
down  the  gauntlet  than  Cyril  was  prepared  to  take  it 


St.   Cyril  of  A  lexandria,  2 1 9 

up.  In  fact  even  before  the  dispute  arose  Cyril  had 
already,  like  Athanasius,  produced  his  initial  treatise 
upon  its  subject-matter.  He  did  not  assume  any 
new  position  through  antagonism  to  his  opponent. 
His  position  was  the  logical  Alexandrian  one.  He 
was  the  honest  and  veritable  successor,  and  intellec- 
tually and  theologically  no  unworthy  one,  to  the  great 
Athanasius.  Indeed  his  uncle  Theophilus,  although 
less  honest  and  of  worse  temper,  was  no  mean  theo- 
logian and  had  inherited  and  transmitted  the  ortho- 
doxy of  the  school.  And  in  the  discussions  to  ensue 
Cyril  frequently  manifests  at  least  a  doctrinal  and 
theological  if  not  personal  appreciation  of  the  genu- 
inely religious  interests  involved,  not  less  true  than 
that  of  Athanasius  himself.  He  dwells  even  less  upon 
the  mere  revealing  and  teaching  and  more  upon  the 
actually  regenerating  and  redeeming  function  of  the 
incarnation,  and  in  a  way  to  show  that  he  had  fully 
felt  its  necessity  in  thought  at  least  if  not  in  personal 
experience.  But  why  not  in  both  ?  Men  are  generally 
as  much  better  as  they  are  worse  than  they  appear ; 
the  heights  and  the  depths  meet  in  us  all.  And  it 
would  seem  that  in  that  age  wider  extremes  of  good 
and  bad  could  coexist  in  one  man  ;  men  could  be  both 
better  and  worse,  both  higher  and  lower,  than  it  is 
possible  to  be  at  one  and  the  same  time  now. 

Cyril  began  by  making  the  issue  that  Nestorius  had 
raised  the  subject  of  his  annual  paschal  pastoral  in  the 
spring  of  329,  but  without  personal  allusion  to  Nes- 
torius himself.  Especial  excitement  had  been  aroused 
among  the  monks  by  the  attack  upon  the  Theotocos, 
and  Cyril  in  allaying  this  proceeded  further  in  an  elab- 


220  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

orate  circular  letter  to  give  the  catholic  use  of  the 
title  as  indicating  not,  as  Nestorius  had  charged,  that 
the  Virgin  was  mother  of  the  Godhead  in  a  heathen 
sense,  but  only  of  the  humanity  in  our  Lord.  "  But," 
he  continued,  "  since  it  was  not  a  man  who  was  born 
of  her  but  God  the  Word  in  human  form  or  nature, 
therefore  he  whose  mother  she  was  was  God  and  she 
was  mother  of  God."  In  the  more  and  more  heated 
correspondence  that  ensued  Cyril  certainly  at  first 
strives  to  keep  the  discussion  free  from  personal  com- 
plications and  subordinate  to  the  interests  of  the  truth. 
His  analysis  of  the  position  of  Nestorius  is  acute  and 
masterly  and  evinces  nothing  more  than  a  religious 
as  well  as  scientific  regard  for  the  theology  and  the 
Christianity  of  the  church.  If  he  had  had  a  Theodore 
instead  of  only  a  Nestorius  to  deal  with,  and  if  it  had 
been  possible  (at  any  time,  but  especially  in  that  con- 
tentious age)  for  the  two  parties  to  think  out  sym- 
pathetically, from  their  opposite  points  of  view,  the 
common  truth  of  which  they  were  both  in  search, 
much  good  might  have  been  gained  and  much  evil 
averted.  But  Christians  are  as  human  as  Christianity 
is  divine,  and  even  human  passions  are  among  the 
means  to  divine  ends. 

News  of  the  excitement  created  by  Nestorius  in 
due  time  reached  Rome,  and  he  himself  in  a  letter 
to  the  Bishop  Celestine  incidentally  alludes  to  the 
measures  he  had  felt  called  upon  to  take  with  refer- 
ence to  the  heathen  representation  of  the  Virgin  as 
mother  of  God ;  and  asks  his  judgment  of  the  matter. 
Celestine  kept  the  subject  a  long  time  under  advise- 
ment upon  the  excuse  of  having  to  get  it  properly 


Attitude  of  the  Roman  Bishop.       221 

translated  and  considered;  and  meantime  he  was  in 
correspondence  with  Cyril  with  whose  views  he  finally 
and  entirely  concurred.  It  was  due  in  great  measure 
to  the  Roman  mind  and  character  and  to  the  pecu- 
liar qualities  and  limitations  of  the  Latin  tongue,  and 
not  only  to  any  especial  wisdom  or  prudence  of  the 
Roman  bishops,  that  their  relation  to  all  the  questions 
of  speculative  doctrine  which  agitated  the  church  was 
not  a  controversial  but  a  judicial  one.  They  never 
contributed  to  results  but  only  weighed  and  passed 
judgment  upon  them.  It  was  very  naturally  their 
policy  to  be  silent  in  discussion  and  to  balance  con- 
clusions. Lacking  the  more  subtle  and  philosophical 
qualities  of  mind,  they  left  the  analysis  and  definition 
of  principles  to  the  Greek  intellect  and  language  which 
seemed  to  be  specially  constituted  for  it,  and  played 
the  part  of  the  common  sense  which  tests  and  passes 
judgment  upon  the  decisions  of  the  reason.  Undis- 
turbed by  the  sophistries  which  mingle  with  and  con- 
fuse theoretical  disputes  and  by  the  personalities  and 
partisanship  engendered  by  heated  controversy,  they 
were  better  qualified  to  represent  the  universal  prac- 
tical religious  instincts  and  experiences,  and  in  the 
light  of  these  to  be  dispassionate  and  impartial  judges 
of  discussions  which  they  could  not  always  follow  and 
of  results  which  they  could  never  have  attained. 

Celestine  when  he  was  ready  summoned  a  synod 
in  Rome,  which  from  the  standpoint  of  Cyril  conr 
demned  Nestorius.  He  then  wrote  to  Cyril  to  add 
his  authority  to  his  own,  and  that  they  should  con- 
jointly proceed  to  the  excommunication  of  Nestorius 
and  the  provision  of  a  successor  for  Constantinople, 


222  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

unless  he  should  repent  of  his  heresy  within  ten  days 
of  his  receipt  of  their  action.  Cyril  on  his  part,  on 
receipt  of  this  communication  from  Rome,  gathered 
a  council  of  Egyptian  bishops  and  at  the  beginning 
of  November  430  addressed  to  Nestorius  a  fuller 
letter,  the  points  of  which  were  summed  up  in  twelve 
anathematisms  in  which  he  called  upon  Nestorius  to 
unite,  directed  against  the  specific  errors  with  which 
he  was  charged :  "  That  Immanuel  is  not  really  God 
and  the  Virgin  not  Theotocos ;  that  the  Logos  was 
not  personally  joined  to  the  flesh ;  that  there  was  a 
connection  of  two  persons  (owdfaia) ;  that  Christ  is  a 
God-bearing  man  (0ed0opo$-) ;  that  he  was  a  separate  in- 
dividual acted  on  by  the  Word  and  called  God  along 
with  him;  that  his  flesh  was  not  the  Word's  own; 
that  the  Word  did  not  suffer  death  in  the  flesh ;"  etc. 

In  reply  Nestorius  issued  twelve  counter-anathe- 
mas. And  Cyril  having  opened  the  way  with  a  lack 
of  care  and  caution  that  afterward  he  found  very 
hard  to  explain,  to  an  attack  on  his  own  views,  John 
of  Antioch,  Theodoret  and  others  of  the  Eastern 
bishops  now  also  entered  into  the  controversy  with 
charges  against  him  of  Apollinarianism. 

But  before  all  this,  and  in  fact  before  Cyril's  mes- 
sengers had  reached  Constantinople  with  the  twelve 
anathemas,  the  Emperor  Theodosius  II.  had  placed 
a  temporary  quietus  upon  the  whole  controversy  by 
issuing  a  summons  for  a  general  council  to  be  held 
after  Easter  of  the  following  year,  431,  pending  which 
all  proceedings  were  ordered  to  be  suspended. 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE    COUNCIL    OF    EPHESUS. 

YRIL  had  of  course  the  immense  advan- 
tage over  Nestorius  that  the  matter  of  con- 
troversy was  the  heresy  of  the  latter,  and 
not  any  possible  deficiencies  in  his  own 
faith.  But  beside  this  he  was  very  much 
more  than  a  match  for  him,  not  only  in  his  transcen- 
dent ability  as  a  controversialist  and  his  irresistible 
personal  energy  but  in  the  political  arts  which  the 
character  of  the  times  rendered  an  essential  element 
of  success.  The  one  advantage  that  Nestorius  pos- 
sessed in  the  favor  of  the  emperor,  who  was  on  his 
side  and  was  personally  prejudiced  against  Cyril,  was 
only  a  source  of  weakness  to  him ;  inasmuch  as  it  led 
him  through  undue  reliance  upon  it  to  neglect  the 
necessary  exertions  and  precautions  for  securing  to 
himself  a  fair  and  favorable  hearing.  Nothing  was 
done  on  his  part,  while  nothing  was  neglected  on  the 
other. 

The  council  met  in  Ephesus  in  June  A.D.  431,  and 
was  at  once  taken  possession  of  by  Cyril  and  the  local 
bishop  Memnon,  who  packed  it  with  their  suffragans. 
The  sentiment  of  the  city  was  unanimous  against 
Nestorius  who,  realizing  the  hopelessness  of  impartial 

223 


224  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

treatment  and  dreading  violence  to  his  person,  ab- 
sented himself  altogether. 

In  Constantinople  itself  Cyril  was  no  less  actively 
at  work.  The  monks  of  the  city  were  aroused 
and  set  to  influence  and  terrify  the  weak  mind  of 
the  emperor.  Before  the  council  closed  Alexandria 
had  almost  impoverished  itself  in  costly  presents 
and  bribes  to  influential  members  of  the  court  and 
the  imperial  household.  And  in  course  of  time  no 
labor  or  expense  was  spared  to  .excite  or  foster 
dissensions  among  the  favorers  of  Nestorius.  By 
October  the  whole  thing  was  over ;  Nestorius  had 
been  deposed  and  banished ;  Maximian  had  been 
consecrated  in  his  stead,  and  Cyril  was  plying  the 
latter  with  suggestions  and  advice  how  best, to  com- 
plete and  establish  his  victory. 

We  are  however  mainly  concerned  not  with  the 
politics  but  with  the  progress  of  the  doctrinal  interests 
involved,  and  to  this  we  direct  our  attention.  On  one 
side  of  the  question  at  issue  Cyril,  although  not  alone, 
was  almost  as  overshadowing  and  supreme  as  Atha- 
nasius  had  been  in  the  conflict  with  Arianism.  On 
the  other  side  matters  stood  about  as  follows:  Be- 
tween the  emperor's  call  in  November  and  the  con- 
vening of  the  council  in  June  the  patriarchate  of 
Antioch  had  been  awaking  to  the  issue  unexpect- 
edly raised  between  it  and  Alexandria  by  Nestorius's 
action  in  Constantinople. 

The  temper  there  at  the  time  was  moderate  and  con- 
servative. The  speculative  error  of  Theodore  which 
had  not  in  him  led  to  practical  heresy — for  there 
is  much  room  for  logical  inconsequence  between 


Conservative   Temper  of  Antioch.      225 

speculative  and  practical  opinion  and  thought — had 
been  much  softened  down  and  was  in  a  fair  way  to 
disappear  gradually  in  the  minds  of  his  successors  at 
home,  not  one  of  whom  can  now  be  convicted  of 
heresy.  If  Antioch  and  Alexandria  could  have  been 
kept  from  the  bitterness  and  blindness  of  controversy, 
they  might  soon  have  coalesced  in  the  common  faith, 
with  no  other  difference  than  that  of  wholesomely 
and  helpfully  occupying  opposite  and  complementary 
points  of  view,  each  professing  also  to  hold  the  truth 
of  the  other. 

John  of  Antioch  was  at  the  time  patriarch;  and 
Theodoret,  a  native  of  Antioch  but  at  this  time 
bishop  of  Cyrrhus  near  the  Euphrates,  was  the  rep- 
resentative, not  inferior  to  any  of  his  predecessors,  of 
the  scholarship  and  learning  of  the  school  of  Antioch. 
In  personal  character  and  ability,  in  sanctity  and  de- 
votion, in  eloquence  and  culture,  Theodoret  combined 
without  diminution  the  qualities  and  gifts  of  Chrysos- 
tom  with  those  of  Theodore.  And  he  was  quite  as 
free  as  the  former  from  the  doctrinal  expressions  and 
positions  which  laid  the  latter  open  to  the  charge  of 
heresy.  Indeed  the  sequel  proved  that  John  and 
Theodoret  and  most  of  the  school  of  Antioch,  but  for 
the  complications  that  followed,  were  already  prepared 
to  meet  the  opposite  side  more  than  half-way  upon 
the  ground  of  the  common  truth.  On  the  other  hand 
it  might  be  repeated,  once  for  all,  with  reference  to 
all  such  reflections  upon  how  things  might  otherwise 
have  happened,  that  the  truth  or  right  never  does 
get  settled  peaceably  or  otherwise  than  by  the 
sword  of  human  strife  and  passion.  And  the  discus- 


226  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

sions  and  disputes  of  this  as  of  the  preceding  century 
were  none  too  much,  if  they  were  even  yet  enough, 
to  develop  and  reconcile  the  issues  lurking  at  the  root 
of  the  church's  doctrine. 

It  happened  that  Theodoret  and  a  number  of  other 
bishops  were  assembled  in  Antioch,  probably  for  the 
consecration  of  one  of  their  number,  when  in  the  fall 
or  winter  before  the  council  the  summons  reached  the 
patriarch  from  Rome  and  Alexandria  to  join  in  the 
excommunication  and  deposition  of  Nestorius  of 
Constantinople,  unless  he  should  at  once  recant  his 
errors.  It  produced  great  excitement  and  indignation, 
because  it  was  not  believed  in  the  East  that  Nesto- 
rius's  objection  to  the  title  "  Theotocos  "  proceeded  to 
the  extent  of  unsoundness  in  the  faith.  While  more 
intemperate  in  other  respects  Nestorius  had  not  gone 
— and  probably  never  did  go — so  far  as  Theodore 
had  in  the  implication  of  a  double  personality  in  our 
Lord;  and  was  not  Theodore  still  the  venerated 
master  of  the  East,  whose  name  had  not  been  sullied 
with  any  charge  of  heresy  ? 

But  notwithstanding  all  this,  a  letter  was  immedi- 
ately prepared  and  sent  to  Nestorius  imploring  him 
to  yield,  and  not  involve  the  whole  church  in  discord 
upon  a  point  about  which  there  was  no  substantial  dis- 
agreement. The  title  "Theotocos"  had  been  conse- 
crated by  orthodox  usage.  Theodore  had  wisely  and 
moderately  forborne  from  objection  to  it,  and  it  was 
susceptible  of  a  sense  which  was  true  and  acceptable 
to  all.  This  letter  is  so  admirable  in  form  as  well  as 
spirit  that  it  has  been  usually  ascribed  to  the  pen  of 
Theodoret,  although  it  was  sent  in  the  name  of  John. 


Division  in  the  Council.  227 

But  Nestorius  was  fixed  in  his  determination  to 
abide  by  the  issue.  With  his  reply  he  sent  the 
Twelve  Articles  or  anathematisms  of  Cyril,  which  had 
been  received  in  the  meantime.  Now  unfortunately, 
as  has  been  said,  these  articles  were  at  the  least  un- 
guarded in  expression  and  conveyed  to  the  mind  of 
the  Antiochians,  sensitive  on  the  other  side,  a  distinct 
impression  of  Apollinarian  error.  That  is  to  say, 
Cyril  used  language  which  we  shall  consider  later, 
which  meant  to  them  if  not  in  itself  a  oneness  of  na- 
ture as  well  as  a  unity  of  personality  in  the  incarnate 
Lord  and  so  a  denial  of  any  real  manhood  in  him. 
Several  answers  to  Cyril  were  at  once  prepared  and 
circulated,  one  of  them  by  Theodoret,  and  all  based 
upon  not  only  insufficient  but  false  views  of  his  opin- 
ions. Thus  all  Antioch  was  involved  in  the  quarrel 
of  Nestorius  and  preparations  were  made  for  an  ir- 
repressible conflict  at  the  forthcoming  council  over 
irreconcilable  differences. 

As  soon  as  Easter  and  its  octave  were  over,  John 
assembled  at  Antioch  his  suffragans  and  prepared  for 
his  departure  to  Ephesus.  He  was  delayed  by  a 
famine  and  troubles  in  the  city  and  by  bad  weather 
and  accidents  on  the  way.  It  was  a  six  weeks'  jour- 
ney at  the  best,  and  messengers  sent  ahead  found 
Cyril  provoked  by  the  delay  and  impatient  to  begin. 
John  regretted  and  explained  his  slowness,  but  hoped 
to  embrace  his  brother  within  one  week  more  and  be 
ready  for  business.  Besides  this  formal  message  he 
had  privately  instructed  several  of  those  who  had  gone 
ahead  to  say  that  if  he  should  be  still  further  delayed 
they  should  proceed  without  him.  Cyril  impatiently 


228  7*he  Ecumenical  Councils. 

seized  upon  this  as  a  pretext  and  forthwith  convened 
the  council.  And  when  John  and  the  Syrian  bishops 
arrived  on  June  27th,  within  the  time  specified  in 
their  message,  they  found  that  the  council  had  been 
in  session  for  some  days  and  its  work  practically 
accomplished ;  Nestorius  was  deposed  and  excom- 
municated. The  forty-odd  Antiochians  were  pro- 
voked by  the  discourtesy  shown  and  the  advantage 
taken  of  them  into  a  course  which  for  intemperance 
and  violence  unfortunately  out-Cyrilled  Cyril  and 
placed  an  impassable  chasm  between  the  two  parties. 
Refusing  on  their  arrival  to  accept  any  attentions  or 
explanations  or  to  see  any  of  the  opposite  faction, 
they  proceeded  before  even  removing  the  dust  of 
their  journey  to  hold  a  conference  in  their  inn,  in 
which  they  deposed  and  excommunicated  Cyril  and 
Memnon  and  anathematized  their  supposed  opinions. 
And  so  the  great  gathering  of  bishops  was  instantly 
and  hopelessly  split  into  two  hostile  and  irreconcilable 
councils,  each  anathematizing  the  other  for  opposite 
heresies  of  which  probably  none  present  were  really 
guilty.  The  representatives  of  the  bishop  of  Rome 
arrived  later  and  at  once  added  the  authority  of  Rome 
to  that  of  Alexandria  in  condemnation  of  Nestorius. 
For  some  time  longer  both  sides  were  eagerly  press- 
ing their  claims  upon  Theodosius  II.  and  awaiting  Kis 
decision.  At  length  after  much  vacillation  the  emperor 
inclined  to  the  side  of  Cyril  but  refused  to  confirm 
any  penalties  against  the  Oriental  bishops.  So  the 
council  broke  up  and  the  bishops  returned  to  their 
homes  with  no  new  doctrinal  decisions  and  the  net 
result  of  the  personal  condemnation  of  Nestorius. 


Movement  toward  Reconciliation.      229 

No  sooner  however  were  the  parties  to  it  dispersed 
than  the  quarrel  began  to  assume  a  less  serious  and 
violent  character.  The  change  was  no  doubt  largely 
due  to  the  desire  and  determination  of  the  emperor 
to  effect  a  reconciliation  and  to  the  consciousness  on 
the  part  of  the  Eastern  bishops  that  the  weight  of  the 
church  was  against  them.  The  emperor  was  espe- 
cially anxious  to  effect  a  better  understanding  between 
John  and  Cyril,  and  this  was  facilitated  by  the  fact 
that  each  of  these  was  feeling  the  need  of  exculpating 
himself  from  what  he  thought  to  be  false  and  unjust 
impressions  as  to  his  position.  Cyril  had  been  busy 
even  at  Ephesus,  while  the  case  of  the  two  parties 
was  in  suspense  before  the  emperor,  writing  a  defense 
of  his  misunderstood  Twelve  Articles.  He  subse- 
quently wrote  to  Maximian  a  disclaimer  of  the  views 
imputed  to  him  and  was  now  preparing  a  vindication 
of  himself  to  be  submitted  to  the  emperor.  John  of 
Antioch  and  his  party  on  their  way  home,  while  still 
under  the  fresh  sense  of  their  wrongs,  had  halted  at 
Tarsus  to  hold  a  new  council,  in  which  the  deposition 
of  Cyril  was  confirmed  and  the  members  pledged 
themselves  never  to  consent  to  that  of  Nestorius. 
Soon  after  another  was  held  at  Antioch  which  was 
much  more  largely  attended.  At  this  the  Twelve 
Articles  of  Cyril  were  condemned,  the  Nicene  Creed 
was  declared  to  be  a  sufficient  confession  of  faith, 
Athanasius's  exposition  of  it  in  his  epistle  to  Epic- 
tetus  was  adopted  as  the  expression  of  orthodoxy,  and 
finally — indicating  the  beginning  of  the  change  to- 
ward better  feelings — Six  Articles  were  drawn  up  as  a 
basis  of  possible  reunion. 


230  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

The  emperor  had  been  unsuccessful  in  his  first 
efforts  to  bring  John  and  Cyril  together  in  a  private 
interview,  but  on  receipt  of  the  Six  Articles  of  An- 
tioch,  which  had  been  sent  to  him  by  the  aged  and 
venerated  Acacius  of  Beroea,  Cyril  wrote  to  John  a 
letter  that  opened  the  way  to  further  and  closer 
approaches.  Cyril  implied  that  his  own  Twelve 
Articles,  which  he  had  been  at  so  much  pains  to  ex- 
plain, would  not  be  allowed  to  stand  in  the  way  of 
a  reconciliation,  disavowed  and  condemned  the  here- 
sies attributed  to  him,  and  insisted  upon  nothing 
but  concurrence  in  the  condemnation  of  Nestorius. 
Through  the  good  offices  of  Acacius,  who  seemed 
to  have  singularly  combined  the  respect  and  affection 
of  all  parties,  John  admitted  that  the  letter  of  Cyril 
certainly  cleared  him  of  any  charge  of  heresy,  and 
sent  to  Alexandria  one  of  his  bishops,  Paul  of  Emesa, 
to  confer  further  upon  the  differences  between  the 
patriarchs  and  the  terms  of  reconciliation.  There 
were  still  obstacles  in  the  way,  but  Paul  acted  with 
prudence  and  tact,  explained  and  smoothed  away 
difficulties,  pleased  both  bishop  and  people  by  one 
or  more  sermons  preached  at  Christmastide,  in  which 
he  took  occasion  to  express  his  views  of  the  incarna- 
tion, and  returned  to  Antioch  with  terms  of  commu- 
nion upon  John's  signature  of  which  Alexandria  and 
Antioch  should  be  one  again. 

After  some  delay  and  a  little  imperial  pressure  John 
accepted  the  terms,  and  in  the  spring  of  433  sent  to 
Cyril  the  formulary  of  reunion  with  his  signature. 
He  concurred,  in  spite  of  the  pledge  at  Tarsus,  in  the 
sentence  of  Nestorius  and  the  condemnation  of  Nes- 


Obstacles  to  Reconciliation.  231 

torianism.  Cyril  replied  in  a  letter  beginning,  "  Let 
the  heavens  rejoice  and  the  earth  be  glad!" 

The  Oriental  party  however  did  not  all  follow  their 
head.  Most  of  them  could  have  joined  in  the  con- 
demnation of  Nestorianism  but  not  in  the  sentence 
of  Nestorius,  because  they  did  not  hold  him  guilty 
of  it.  And  besides  that  they  had  solemnly  agreed  at 
the  Council  of  Tarsus  not  to  abandon  a  man  in  whose 
substantial  orthodoxy  they  believed  and  at  whose 
unjust  treatment  they  were  indignant.  Nestorius  was 
now  in  a  monastery  near  Antioch  with  which  in  earlier 
life  he  had  been  connected  and  where  he  was  kindly 
received  and  treated  on  his  return  by  the  bishop  and 
the  whole  church  of  Antioch.  But  at  no  stage  of  his 
career  had  he  shown  a  very  attractive  spirit,  and 
perhaps  his  persistent  obstinacy  and  intractableness 
at  this  juncture,  as  well  as  the  satisfactory  explana- 
tions and  the  conciliatory  temper  of  Cyril  after  the 
council,  had  wrought  the  change  in  John's  mind.  To 
these  causes  however  must  be  added  the  good  man- 
agement and  judicious  pressure  of  the  imperial  officers, 
the  wisdom  and  tact  of  such  episcopal  advisers  and 
helpers  as  Acacius  and  Paul  of  Emesa,  the  moderation 
of  Celestine  of  Rome  and  his  successor,  and  John's 
own  prudent  consciousness  that  he  was  on  the  losing 
side. 

Besides  those  who  acted  thus  with  John,  there  were 
two  other  sections  of  the  Antiochian  party  who  took 
a  different  stand.  First  there  was  a  very  large  one 
represented  by  Theodoret  and  those  like  him  who 
repudiating  Nestorianism  refused  to  condemn  Nesto- 
rius. Theodoret  had  thrown  himself  prematurely  and 


232  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

bitterly  into  the  doctrinal  controversy  with  Cyril  and 
had  not  personally  shown  himself  in  it  at  his  best. 
Upon  Cyril's  subsequent  explanations,  and  in  the 
subject-matter  of  his  negotiations  with  John,  he  had 
frankly  admitted  that  Cyril  had  cleared  himself  of 
heresy.  But  Cyril's  one  condition  of  intercommunion 
was  the  condemnation  of  Nestorius,  and  in  the  way 
of  this  was  not  only  the  pledge  to  stand  by  him  but 
the  continued  faith  in  his  innocence.  There  being  no 
doctrinal  ground  of  separation  it  was  of  course  only 
a  question  of  time  how  soon  this  section  would  be 
reconciled  with  the  church.  They  seemed  by  degrees 
to  admit  that  there  was  something  that  the  church 
had  need  to  condemn  under  the  name  of  Nestorius, 
whether  he  himself  was  formally  and  technically  guilty 
of  it  or  not.  Theodoret  himself  joined  in  the  con- 
demnation late  in  the  sessions  of  the  next  general 
council  at  Chalcedon.  But  the  spirit  of  irreconcilable 
and  undying  hostility  to  "  Egypt  "  was  concentrated 
in  the  person  of  the  good  and  holy  bishop  of  Hiera- 
polis,  Alexander,  and  a  small  section  of  men  of  the 
same  temper,  who  persisted,  against  the  disinclination 
of  the  authorities  to  resort  to  severity,  in  suffering 
the  loss  of  all  things  and  preferring  death  in  exile 
and  poverty  to  intercommunion  with  the  heretics  of 
Alexandria. 

So  far  for  the  external  history  of  the  downfall  of 
Nestorius.  It  is  quite  a  different  matter  when  we 
come  to  ask  ourselves  what  progress  had  been  made 
toward  the  solution  of  the  doctrinal  problem  that 
constituted  the  sole  interest  and  value  of  the  whole 
dispute.  The  one  point  gained  might  be  said  to  be 


Net  Result  of  the  Council.  233 

the  final  settlement  of  the  question  of  the  double 
personality ;  the  language  of  Theodore  and  Nestorius 
would  never  afterward  have  been  possible  within  the 
church.  But  that  was  in  process  of  settling  itself  and 
would  not  have  survived  long  to  trouble  the  peace  of 
the  church.  The  idea  of  a  Christ  who  is  two  persons, 
the  Son  of  God  who  becomes  man  only  in  the  sense 
of  being  morally  reproduced  in  a  human  person  as 
his  free  image  or  likeness ;  and  a  man  who  is  the  Son 
of  God  only  in  the  sense  that  he  morally  images  and 
reproduces  him  in  himself,  is  too  untenable  and  im- 
possible in  itself,  and  falls  too  far  short  of  the  church's 
faith  in  a  real  incarnation,  to  have  perpetuated  itself. 
Cyril  had  truly  stated  the  question  at  issue  to  be, 
"  Whether  Jesus  was  a  human  individual  (no  matter 
how  closely  related  to  God),  or  whether  he  was  the 
divine  Son  himself  appearing  in  human  form.  In  the 
former  case  the  Son  of  Mary  must  be  regarded  simply 
as  a  very  highly  favored  saint;  in  the  latter,  as  a 
divine  Redeemer."  But  there  were  practically  none 
now  of  the  opposite  party  who  would  not  freely  con- 
cede as  much.  While  then  under  the  term  "  Nesto- 
rianism  "  the  error  to  which  the  Antiochian  doctrine 
inclined  was  condemned,  and  effectually  condemned, 
on  the  other  hand  was  the  truth  from  Antioch  which 
the  church  needed,  and  which  was  sought  to  be  added 
as  the  complement  and  completion  of  that  from 
Alexandria,  in  any  fair  way  of  securing  recognition 
and  appreciation?  At  that  moment  most  assuredly 
not.  Cyril  is  singularly  clear  and  sound  in  detecting 
the  logical  tendencies  and  dangers  of  the  opposite 
side,  but  of  the  possibility  of  a  contribution  of  truth 


234  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

from  that  direction  such  as  was  to  be  recognized  and 
accepted  in  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  he  and  his  party 
seem  as  yet  to  have  caught  no  inkling.  It  is  true  he 
makes  now  a  nominal  concession  to  John  in  which 
he  seems  to  be  giving  up  something  and  accepting 
something,  but  he  was  not  long  in  making  it  apparent 
that  he  had  no  such  meaning. 

In  accepting  the  Six  Articles  of  Antioch  as  the 
basis  of  the  reunion  Cyril  gave  his  approval  to  a  con- 
fession of  faith  which,  though  submitted  to  him  now 
simply  as  that  of  John,  was  in  reality  that  drawn 
up  by  Theodoret  for  presentation  in  the  name  of  all 
the  bishops  of  the  East  to  the  Council  of  Ephesus. 
In  this  formulary  our  Lord  is  defined  as  being  "  of 
one  essence  (homoousion)  with  the  Father  as  to  God- 
head, of  one  essence  with  us  as  to  manhood.  For 
there  took  place  a  union  of  two  natures;  wherefore 
we  confess  one  Christ,  one  Son,  one  Lord.  Accord- 
ing to  this  idea  of  a  union  without  confusion,  we 
confess  the  holy  Virgin  to  be  Theotocos,  because  God 
the  Son  was  incarnate  and  made  man,  and  from  his 
very  conception  united  to  himself  the  temple  assumed 
from  her."  In  this  formula,  it  will  be  observed,  there 
is  an  explicit  recognition  of  the  twp  natures  united 
without  confusion  in  the  one  person  of  the  incarnate 
Lord.  It  was  just  this  distinct  acknowledgment  of 
the  two  aspects,  divine  and  human,  in  the  incar- 
nation that  the  Orientals  had  insisted  upon,  and 
when  Cyril  thus  admitted  it  their  objection  was  re- 
moved and  John  and  Theodoret  both  accepted  it  at 
the  time  as  satisfactory  assurance  of  Cyril's  orthodoxy 
from  their  point  of  view.  But  it  is  very  evident  that 


Doctrine  of  the  "  One  Incarnate  Nature"    235 

Cyril  did  not  mean  it  as  they  received  it.  Either  the 
concession  was  not  made  in  good  faith  or  else  Cyril 
was  very  far  from  conceiving  or  appreciating  the 
truth,  and  the  importance  of  the  truth,  for  which  the 
Orientals  were  contending.  This  will  appear  from  all 
his  subsequent  conduct. 

As  many  of  the  Easterns  thought  that  John  had 
yielded  too  easily  and  too  much,  so  the  followers  of 
Cyril  felt  that  he  had  gone  too  far  in  the  compromise 
effected  between  them  in  his  acceptance  of  the  phrase 
"two  natures."  In  justifying  himself  he  explains 
what  he  means  by  it  and  proves  very  conclusively 
that  it  is  very  far  short  of  what  the  Orientals  under- 
stood or  would  have  been  satisfied  with  or  what  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  afterward  taught.  He  points 
out  the  natural  distinction  and  necessary  difference 
between  the  nature  of  God  and  the  nature  of  man, 
which  before  the  incarnation  are  manifestly  two  na- 
tures and  are  combined  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 
But  they  are  two  only  before  the  incarnation ;  in  their 
union  in  the  incarnate  One  they  cease  to  be  two  and 
become  one.  After  that,  the  mind  may  still  conceive 
them  as  two  but  in  fact  and  in  operation  they  have 
become  one  and  are  not  to  be  distinguished  in  their 
activity. 

If  this  is  so  is  there  any  room  or  possibility  for  a 
real  human  life  of  our  Lord  or  is  it  possible  to  say 
that  he  was  a  man?  The  contention  of  the  Orientals 
was  not  theoretical  but  practical ;  they  demanded 
that,  after  and  in  the  union,  the  human  nature, 
the  human  life  and  activity  of  the  Lord  should 
have  its  proper  significance  and  value  in  the  act  and 


236  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

fact  of  the  divine-human  atonement.  If  there  was 
but  one  nature  in  the  incarnate  One,  then  either  he 
was  no  longer  God  but  only  man  or  no  longer  man 
but  only  God  or  no  longer  either  but  only  something 
half-way  between  both.  The  catholic  truth  is  that 
our  Lord  is,  after  and  in  the  incarnation,  both  God 
and  man  in  the  complete  nature  and  activity  or  oper- 
ation of  both,  so  that  in  his  every  act  and  quality 
and  character  we  can  say,  and  mean  it,  that  he  is 
very  man  and  also  very  God. 

So,  after  and  in  spite  of  the  contrary  assurance  in 
terms  and  his  acceptance  of  the  two  natures  united 
without  confusion  in  the  person  of  our  Lord,  Cyril 
continued  to  hold  as  before  what  the  Antiochians 
really  objected  to  in  the  doctrine  of  the  "  one  nature." 
It  is  not  that  he  was  guilty  of  bad  faith  so  much  as 
that  he  never  did  see  the  other  side  sufficiently  to 
understand  or  appreciate  the  truth  of  its  claim.  It  is 
true  that  it  is  common  still  to  maintain  that  what  he 
means  by  the  jum  (frvavs,  the  one  nature  of  the  Incar- 
nate, is  the  single  personality  in  the  two  natures  ;  and 
every  now  and  then  Cyril  succeeded  in  convincing 
his  opponents  that  that  was  his  meaning,  just  as  every 
now  and  then  detached  sentences  may  persuade  us 
of  the  same  thing ;  but  a  careful  weighing  of  his  own 
explanations,  as  of  those  of  his  modern  apologists, 
convinces  us  of  the  contrary.  It  would  be  unjust  to 
charge  him  with  'heresy,  and  in  doing  so  we  should 
implicate  even  greater  and  much  holier  doctors  than 
he  before  him.  But  it  is  very  certain  that  at  Alex- 
andria one  side,  one  half,  the  truth  was  not  only 
undeveloped,  but  in  the  mind  of  Cyril  and  still  more 


Alexandrian  Christology  Defective.     237 

in  the  mind  of  his  successor  seemed  incapable  of 
taking  root.  They  were  so  satisfied  with  what  they 
had  done  that  it  seemed  impossible  for  them  to  con- 
ceive that  there  might  be  something  more  to  be  done. 
To  them  the  two  natures,  distinct  before,  became 
practically  one  after  the  union  in  Jesus  Christ.  The 
one  divine  Person  acted  indeed  in  both,  or  under  the 
form  of  both,  but  it  was  a  single  and  thus  a  divine 
activity.  It  was  God  and  not  man  who  lived  and 
spoke  and  acted  in  Jesus.  The  human  nature  is  in- 
deed acknowledged  as  acting  according  to  its  own 
laws  in  certain  lower  functions,  as  in  the  bodily  wants, 
sufferings,  etc.  But  these  are  not  distinctly  human, 
they  are  animal ;  the  human  begins  properly  in  the 
consciousness  and  the  will.  And  the  humanity  of 
our  Lord's  consciousness  and  will  is  to  be  found  in 
a  freedom,  a  choice,  a  limitation  and  growth,  a  reality 
of  weakness  and  temptation,  of  faith  and  obedience, 
which  are  not  possible  in  a  system  that  denies  the 
continuance  in  the  incarnation  of  a  true  human  nature 
and  human  conditions. 

Cyril  simply  does  not  advance  a  step  beyond  the 
stage  of  Athanasius  in  this  direction.  As  a  whole  and 
implicitly  there  is  the  opposite  of  any  denial  of  the 
very  humanity  of  the  Lord ;  but  in  detail  there  is  no 
full  understanding  and  valuing  of  the  part  of  the 
human  activity  in  the  true  end  and  result  of  the  incar- 
nation. The  atonement  is  solely  something  which 
God  did,  not  also  something  which  man  did. 

Of  course  so  hollow  a  compromise  and  reconciliation 
could  not  be  a  very  lasting  one  and  this  was  not  long 
in  becoming  apparent.  We  saw  how  anxious  the 


238  77/6'  Ecumenical  Councils. 

emperor  was  for  the  reunion  and  how  large  a  part 
he  had  in  effecting  it.  When  it  was  accomplished, 
he  undertook  to  enforce  conformity  to  its  terms,  and 
the  pressure  gently  applied  at  first  to  John  of  Antioch 
himself  was  by  degrees  and  in  the  end  much  more 
decidedly  brought  to  bear  upon  those  who,  like  Alex- 
ander of  Hierapolis,  utterly  refused  to  be  reconciled. 
The  agitation  and  resistance  only  served  to  give  a 
new  impulse  to  the  circulation  and  study  of  the  works 
of  Theodore,  and  produced  the  impression  of  a  revi- 
val of  the  principles  that  had  been  only  superficially 
touched  and  were  very  far  from  being  permanently 
extinguished  in  the  person  of  Nestorius.  It  so  hap- 
pened that  the  good  and  charitable  Proclus,  the  suc- 
cessor of  Maximian  at  Constantinople,  who  had  done 
much  to  bring  the  opposite  parties  together  by  im- 
partially recognizing  them  all  as  in  full  communion 
with  himself,  wrote  to  the  Syrian  church  urging  them, 
on  their  part  in  the  interest  of  the  reconciliation,  to 
disavow  and  condemn  certain  extracts  which  he  had 
collected  as  liable  to  prejudice  their  claim  to  ortho- 
doxy. These  extracts  were  in  fact  drawn  from  the 
works  of  Theodore  but  it  was  not  so  stated  and  no 
mention  was  made  of  his  name.  Unfortunately  the 
messengers  thought  good  to  insert  officiously  the 
name  that  the  tact  of  the  bishop  had  wisely  omitted. 
The  condemnation  of  the  extracts  would  consequently 
as  it  now  stood  carry  with  it  that  of  Theodore  himself. 
No  doubt  John  and  Theodoret  and  the  great  body  of 
the  Oriental  bishops  were  quite  ready  at  the  time  to 
disavow  the  objectionable  language,  but  none  were 


Character  of  Cyril.  239 

willing  to  begin  at  this  late  date  to  affix  to  the  great 
and  venerated  name  of  Theodore  the  stigma  of  a 
heresy  with  which  the  church  had  not  charged  him 
and  of  which  however  in  terms  he  might  have  been 
guilty  they  at  least  did  not  believe  him  in  spirit  or 
life  to  have  been  so.  And  if  he  had  been,  no  doubt 
they  would  still  have  felt  that  in  themselves,  his  dis- 
ciples and  successors,  it  was  suffering  a  gradual  and 
natural  correction  and  oblivion,  and  that  just  the  one 
way  to  revive  and  renew  it  was  to  disturb  the  peace- 
ful and  revered  memory  of  Theodore. 

Cyril  himself  was  forced  to  recognize  the  weight 
of  the  above  reasoning  and  when  it  came  to  the  point 
counselled  against  any  formal  condemnation  of  the 
person  of  Theodore.  But  he  could  not  be  blind  to 
the  fact  of  the  revival  throughout  the  East  of  the 
great  reputation  and  influence  of  Theodore,  whose 
works  the  Nestorians  were  industriously  circulating. 
It  looked  as  though  the  heresy,  slain  in  the  person 
of  Nestorius,  were  undergoing  resurrection  in  the  far 
greater  and  more  influential  person  of  its  real  author. 
Gladly  would  Cyril  have  extirpated  in  the  root  in 
Theodore  that  which  it  now  appeared  had  only  been 
lopped  off  in  the  branches  in  Nestorius.  Unable  to 
reach  his  person  or  to  stigmatize  his  memory,  he  de- 
voted his  last  years  to  the  refutation  of  his  works 
and  to  this  task  all  his  thoughts  were  directed  when 
in  A.D.  444  he  was  cut  off  in  the  midst  of  his  zeal 
and  labors  for  the  truth. 

The  estimate  both  of  the  personal  character  and  of 
the  doctrinal  service  to  the  church  of  Cyril  of  Alex- 


240  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

andria  will  always  be  one  of  the  problems  of  history. 
With  regard  to  the  former,  after  all  has  been  said  of 
his  faults  and  limitations,  and  they  were  great,  his 
sincerity,  his  courage,  his  devotion  to"  the  truth  as  he 
saw  it  will  never  suffer  from  that  closer  acquaintance 
which  is  necessary  to  enable  one  to  judge  him  fairly. 
The  subordination  of  the  claims  of  concrete  charity 
to  those  of  abstract  orthodoxy  seems  singularly  to 
characterize  the  Greek  Christianity  of  that  age  and 
Cyril  was  a  conspicuous  instance  of  the  type,  but  the 
intolerance  and  violence  of  his  youth  seem  to  have 
been  at  least  modified  by  age  and  experience,  and 
we  may  hope  that  he  ended  with  somewhat  less  of 
the  knowledge  that  puffeth  up  and  somewhat  more 
of  the  love  that  buildeth  up  than  he  began  with. 

With  regard  to  the  latter  point,  the  contribution  of 
Cyril  to  the  doctrinal  progress  of  the  church,  it  was 
great  but  also  critical  and  negative.  The  net  result 
of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  was  the  condemnation  of 
Nestorius  and  Nestorianism.  He  was  successor  to 
Athanasius  in  that  like  him  he  was  the  master  spirit 
and  pilot  of  one  of  the  ecumenical  councils  of  the 
church,  and  he  stood  for  the  same  truth ;  but  his 
greatness  and  his  service,  in  so  far  as  they  were  an 
actual  factor  in  the  history  of  dogma,  were  exhibited 
in  defence  not  in  construction.  Cyril  added  no  new 
element  in  the  development  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ ; 
it  is  a  question  rather  how  much  he  obstructed  its 
true  progress. 

While  the  Alexandrians  were  thus  with  difficulty 
restraining  their  hands  from  the  attack  upon  Theo- 
dore and  the  principles  of  the  school  of  Antioch,  the 


Renewal  of  the  Issue.  241 

Antiochians  on  their  part  had  ceased  to  attach  any 
value  to  the  disclaimers  and  explanations  of  Cyril 
with  reference  to  his  principle  of  the  jum  fyvaiq,  and 
under  the  leadership  of  Theodoret  were  beginning  to 
organize  the  attack  which,  with  many  alternations  of 
fortune,  was  finally  to  result  in  victory  for  them  in 
turn,  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

EUTYCHIANISM  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON. 

|HE  preparations  on  both  sides  for  the 
renewal  of  hostilities  resulted  in  overt 
action  first  on  the  part  of  the  Orientals. 
In  448  a  local  council  was  in  session  in 
Constantinople  under  the  presidency  of 
Flavian,  who  had  succeeded  Proclus  as  patriarch.  In 
the  midst  of  this  council,  which  had  been  called  for 
quite  other  purposes,  Eusebius  bishop  of  Dorylaeum, 
without  previous  notice,  preferred  before  Flavian 
charges  against  a  monk  of  his  city  of  disseminating 
false  doctrine.  This  was  the  archimandrite  Eutyches 
who  for  many  years  had  presided  over  a  monastery 
of  three  hundred  monks,  and  during  that  time  had 
never  once  emerged  from  his  cloisters.  When  he  was 
summoned  to  appear  and  answer  the  charges,  it 
was  for  a  long  time  impossible  to  prevail  upon  him 
either  to  present  himself  in  person  or  to  submit  a 
statement  of  his  views.  The  determination  and  per- 
sistence however  of  his  prosecutor  Eusebius  finally 
compelled  his  presence  and  examination,  and  he  was 
pronounced  guilty  of  heresy. 

Eutyches  was  a  fair  representative  of  the  extremest 
and  narrowest  section  of  the  following  of  Cyril  upon 

242 


Character  and  Views  of  Eutyches.     243 

the  subject  of  the  single  nature.  He  taught  that  the 
person  of  the  Lord  was  of  or  out  of  two  natures,  but 
not  in  two  natures ;  that  is,  that  the  natures  were  two 
and  distinct  prior  to  their  union  in  the  act  of  incarna- 
tion, but  that  after  that  act  they  were  one.  So  that 
in  the  incarnate  Son  the  human  nature  was  no  longer 
the  same  as  ours;  even  the  body  of  Christ  was  by 
union  with  deity  made  different  from  that  of  other 
men.  Of  course  there  was  in  such  a  view  no  longer 
any  even  pretence  of  room  for  the  slightest  really 
human  volition  or  action  in  our  Lord.  He  was  simply 
God  willing  and  acting  through  a  human  visible  form 
and  outward  appearance.  Such  extreme  instances 
naturally  only  threw  Theodoret  and  his  party  back 
into  distrust  of  Cyril's  own  disavowal  of  denying  the 
real  humanity.  Nevertheless  the  council  acted  with 
extreme  moderation  and  caution ;  the  condemnation 
of  Eutyches  was  expressed  in  the  very  words  of  Cyril 
in  his  letters  to  Nestorius  and  John  of  Antioch. 

The  condemnation  of  Eutyches  was  quickly  fol- 
lowed by  a  much  more  decisive  and  fatal  movement 
from  the  other  side.  In  Constantinople  Flavian  had 
had  from  the  moment  of  his  consecration  a  bitter 
personal  enemy  in  Chrysaphius,  the  infamous  minister 
of  Theodosius  II. ;  and  in  him  Eutyches  now  found 
a  friend  who  was  ready  for  any  measures  by  which 
the  tables  might  be  turned  against  Flavian  and  in 
favor  of  himself.  Through  him  the  imperial  influence 
could  be  relied  upon  to  undo  the  action  of  the  council. 

On  the  death  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria  in  444,  he  was 
in  turn  succeeded  by  his  nephew  Dioscorus,  who 
seems  to  have  combined  in  his  person  all  the  bad 


244  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

qualities  of  his  great-uncle  Theophilus  and  his  uncle 
Cyril,  without  the  redeeming  ones  of  the  latter.  At 
once  violent  and  dishonest,  and  possessed  only  of  the 
energy  and  persistence  without  any  other  qualification 
necessary  for  the  part,  his  ambition  in  life  seems  to 
have  been  to  play  the  role  of  the  great  bishops  of 
Alexandria  who  before  him  had  guided  and  controlled 
general  councils  and  been  the  representatives  of  the 
orthodoxy  of  the  world.  He  at  once  took  up  the 
task  that  Cyril  had  dropped,  of  extirpating  Nesto- 
rianism  in  its  root  by  anathematizing  the  memory  of 
Theodore  and  destroying  the  credit  and  influence  of 
Theodoret.  He  proceeded  at  once  to  the  most  violent 
and  unscrupulous  attacks  upon  the  latter,  disregard- 
ing and  ignoring  the  most  temperate  and  convincing 
demonstrations  of  his  innocence  of  all  the  charges 
brought  against  him.  But  it  was  Dioscorus's  oppor- 
tunity ;  he  had  the  emperor  at  his  back,  and  Nesto- 
rianism  was  to  be  crushed  finally  and  forever  in  the 
persons  of  its  real  representatives,  dead  and  alive. 
Theodoret  could  get  no  hearing  even  from  Theodo- 
sius  more  than  from  Dioscorus,  although  his  let- 
ters of  vindication  and  explanation  have  been  ac- 
cepted from  all  sides  in  the  church  as  models  of  piety 
and  orthodoxy.  He  was  deposed  and  confined  in  a 
monastery,  where  he  was  dependent  upon  friends 
for  the  bare  sustenance  which  he  would  consent  to 
accept  at  their  hands.  But  from  this  retreat  his  cor- 
respondence with  the  outside  leaders  of  the  church, 
Leo,  Flavian  and  others,  no  doubt  accomplished  all 
that  his  personal  activity  could  have. 

The  other  line  of  Dioscorus's  policy  was  to  procure 


The  "  Robber  Synod."  245 

the  reversal  of  the  condemnation  of  Eutyches  and 
therein  the  defeat  and  discomfiture  of  the  opposite 
party.  With  a  view  to  this  the  emperor  was  easily 
induced  through  Chrysaphius  to  call  a  general  council 
to  be  organized  and  controlled  to  that  specific  end. 
The  council  met  in  the  summer  of  449  at  Ephesus, 
and  has  become  famous  or  infamous  under  the  des- 
ignation fixed  upon  it  by  Leo  the  Great  of  Rome, 
of  Latrocinium  or  the  Robber  Council.  Dioscorus 
was  made  president  by  the  emperor  and  from  his 
throne  with  the  cooperation  of  the  imperial  officers 
directed  and  controlled  the  proceedings  with  an  abso- 
luteness and  irresponsibility  that  was  unknown  in 
any  previous  council.  The  Council  of  Constantinople 
that  had  tried  Eutyches  was  brought  into  question 
and  upon  the  pretence  that  its  proceedings  were  to 
be  reviewed  and  judged  by  the  decisions  of  the  gen- 
eral councils  of  Nicaea  and  the  first  Ephesus  the 
bishops  who  had  taken  part  in  his  condemnation,  with 
Flavian  at  their  head,  were  put  upon  their  trial. 
Theodoret  was  specially  excluded  from  the  right  to 
sit  in  the  council.  The  records  of  the  action  at  Con- 
stantinople were  publicly  read,  the  charges  against 
Eutyches  reviewed  and  all  his  answers  accepted  as 
the  sound  doctrine  of  the  church.  Then  Flavian  and 
Eusebius,  who  had  been  the  prosecutor  of  Eutyches, 
were  condemned  and  deposed  and  the  other  bishops 
who  had  united  with  them  were  by  the  violence  of 
Dioscorus  and  the  support  of  the  imperial  officers 
terrorized  into  signing  their  condemnation  and  the 
acquittal  of  Eutyches ;  and  even  this  did  not  secure 
some  of  them  from  subsequent  deposition.  Flavian, 


246  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

who  had  almost  alone  had  the  strength  and  courage 
to  oppose  the  violence  of  Dioscorus,  received  at  the 
hands  of  the  more  brutal  monks  physical  injuries 
that  soon  after  resulted  in  his  death. 

Thus  was  the  temporary  advantage  of  the  Anti- 
ochians  overwhelmingly  reversed  by  the  most  crush- 
ing defeat.  And  yet  perhaps  nothing  could  have 
happened  better  calculated  to  secure  to  them  at 
last  the  consideration  of  their  side  of  the  truth  which 
had  hitherto  been  withheld  by  the  church  and  in 
all  probability  could  never  have  been  secured  from 
Alexandria,  the  traditional  leader  and  representative 
of  catholic  thought.  Dioscorus  had  not  only  done 
everything  in  his  power  to  bring  odium  upon  his  own 
cause  but  he  had  left  nothing  undone  to  alienate  the 
powerful  allies  who  had  hitherto  made  common  cause 
with  Alexandria.  The  see  of  Athanasius  and  Cyril 
had  especially  always  carried  with  it  the  great  weight 
and  authority  of  the  sympathy  and  support  of  Rome. 
The  seat  of  St.  Peter  was  now  occupied  by  the  great- 
est of  its  bishops  up  to  that  time,  and  its  first  great 
theologian,  Leo  I.  Leo  had  been  carefully  studying 
the  course  of  events  that  followed  the  condem- 
nation of  Nestorius.  Upon  his  condemnation  at 
Constantinople  Eutyches  had  confidently  appealed  to 
Leo  and  the  bishops  of  the  West,  upon  whose  side 
as  associated  with  the  cause  of  Cyril  he  naturally 
supposed  himself  to  be.  Leo  also  corresponded  at 
the  time  with  Flavian  and  letters  passed  between  him 
and  Theodoret.  His  impression  of  Eutyches  was  that 
of  a  weak  and  narrow  man  who  had  fallen  into  error 
through  ignorance  rather  than  wickedness. 


Leds  Letter  to  Flavian.  247 

Dioscorus  also  no  doubt  counted  at  first  upon  the 
support  of  Leo  and  the  West — he  seems  to  have 
had  no  misgivings  about  being  the  true  successor  of 
Cyril  and  representative  of  Alexandria.  But  his 
ambition  and  violence  blinded  and  drove  him  on  to 
neglect  and  disregard  and  at  last  even  to  defy  and 
excommunicate  his  great  traditional  ally. 

Some  time  before  the  meeting  of  the  Latrocinium 
Leo  embodied  his  judgment  of  the  whole  doctrinal 
question  at  issue,  with  regard  to  the  two  aspects  of 
the  person  of  Christ,  in  a  letter  to  Flavian,  "  Epistola 
dogmatica  ad  Flavianum."  This  treatise,  commonly 
known  as  the  "  Tome  of  St.  Leo,"  became  one  of  the 
most  influential  as  it  is  still  one  of  the  most  celebrated 
of  the  patristic  writings.  In  it  he  undertakes,  with- 
out condescending  to  controversy  or  discussion,  to 
lay  down  the  faith  of  the  church  with  regard  to  the 
two  natures  in  the  one  divine  personality  of  our  Lord. 
The  letter  was  hailed  with  great  favor  and  applause 
throughout  the  East,  and  Theodoret  wrote  to  Leo 
expressing  his  entire  sympathy  and  accord  with  it. 

Armed  with  this  letter  and  with  another  addressed 
immediately  to  the  council,  the  legates  of  Leo  pre- 
sented themselves  before  it  and  took  their  seats.  But 
the  letters  were  never  received  or  read  and  no  notice 
was  taken  of  them  in  the  proceedings.  Dioscorus 
was  able  to  say  afterward  that  he  had  more  than  once 
proposed  that  the  communications  from  Rome  should 
be  laid  before  the  council ;  but  they  were  not,  and  no 
one  doubted  that  if  Dioscorus  had  been  in  earnest  the 
council  would  have  heard  them.  In  the  violence  that 
disgraced  beyond  all  parallel  the  closing  scenes,  only 


248  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

one  of  the  Roman  legates  could  withstand  the  intim- 
idation that  carried  everything  before  it  sufficiently  to 
utter  his  "  Contradicitur  "  to  the  proceedings.  He  was 
more  fortunate  than  Flavian  in  escaping  with  his  life 
to  carry  the  disgraceful  story  to  his  master,  whom 
he  was  to  succeed  in  the  see  of  Rome  as  Pope  Hilary. 

The  so-called  general  council  broke  up  with  Dios- 
corus  in  possession  of  the  field  and  all  the  East  at  his 
feet.  No  doubt  he  saw  himself  a  third  to  Athanasius 
and  Cyril  in  the  history  of  catholic  dogma,  and  for 
a  brief  while  his  ambition  felt  itself  satisfied. 

But  Leo  was  now  in  the  field,  stirring  every  en- 
ergy to  wipe  out  the  shame  of  the  Latrocinium  by 
substituting  for  it  the  action  of  a  real  general  council 
of  the  church.  His  grief  and  indignation  knew  no 
bounds  but  did  not  paralyze  his  efforts  and  deter- 
mination to  repair  the  damage  done  to  the  faith  and 
honor  of  Christendom. 

The  position  and  character  of  Leo  the  Great  during 
the  more  than  twenty  years  of  his  reign — from  440 
to  461 — were  singularly  impressive  and  commanding. 
It  was  given  to  him  more  than  to  any  other  man  to 
organize  and  consolidate  that  spiritual  empire  in  the 
West  which  was  to  hold  society  together  in  the  dis- 
integration and  decay  of  the  secular  power,  and  to 
transfer  to  the  Christian  church  the  authority  and 
ability  that  were  lost  to  the  Roman  state  to  mould 
and  assimilate  the  barbarian  hordes  that  were  over- 
running the  Western  world.  The  credit  was  given  to 
him  of  personally  overawing  and  turning  back  Attila 
the  Hun  from  the  gates  of  Rome  and  of  softening 
if  not  wholly  averting  the  excesses  of  Genseric  the 


The  Synod  Sustained  by  the  Emperor.   249 

Vandal.  It  was  necessary  for  the  function  that  the 
church  was  to  discharge  in  acting  as  a  bond  to  society 
and  especially  in  receiving,  subduing  and  civilizing 
the  inflowing  tides  of  barbarism  that  it  should  present 
everywhere  a  united  and  compact  front,  and  Leo 
devoted  much  of  his  earlier  energies  to  extending  and 
establishing  the  authority  and  control  of  the  apostol- 
ical see  over  Gaul,  Spain  and  the  whole  of  the  West. 

In  this  he  had  the  advantage  of  an  absolute  influ- 
ence not  only  over  the  Western  Emperor  Valentinian 
III.,  but  over  his  mother  and  wife,  so  that  the  im- 
perial heart  and  arm  were  with  him  in  all  his  schemes 
for  the  unification  and  organization  of  the  spiritual 
power  of  the  church. 

Yet  while  all-powerful  and  practically  without  re- 
sistance in  the  West,  Leo  was  at  this  juncture  pow- 
erless in  the  East.  He  had  indeed  a  noble  and 
powerful  ally  at  court  in  the  person  of  Pulcheria,  the 
remarkable  sister  of  Theodosius  II.,  who  had  been  the 
friend  of  orthodoxy  in  the  person  of  Cyril  in  the 
General  Council  of  Ephesus  as  she  was  to  be  so  to 
Leo  in  connection  with  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 
But  through  the  machinations  of  Chrysaphius  Pul- 
cheria was  powerless  at  this  time  and  the  weak  em- 
peror was  in  the  hands  of  Eutyches  and  Dioscorus. 
Leo  implored  him  to  at  least  let  matters  stand  as  they 
had  been  prior  to  the  proceedings  against  Eutyches, 
to  give  no  authority  to  the  disorderly  Council  at 
Ephesus  and  to  authorize  the  assembling  of  a  really 
ecumenical  council  in  Italy.  But  to  his  appeals  and 
those  of  the  whole  imperial  family  of  the  West  he 
had  no  reply  from  the  emperor  but  a  defence  of  the 


250  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

freedom,  regularity  and  authority  of  the  Latrocinium. 
Meantime  Dioscorus,  who  continued  to  have  things 
his  own  way,  had  excommunicated  Leo.  Anatolius, 
supposed  at  first  to  be  his  adherent  and  instrument, 
had  succeeded  Flavian  at  Constantinople.  The  rest 
of  the  East  was  still  intimidated  by  the  action  of  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  and  the  determination  of  the 
emperor  to  enforce  its  decisions. 

Suddenly  in  the  summer  of  450  the  whole  aspect 
of  matters  was  changed  by  the  sudden  death  of  Theo- 
dosius  II.  and  the  accession  to  the  throne  of  the  pious 
and  orthodox  Pulcheria.  To  strengthen  herself  Pul- 
cheria  married  and  associated  with  her  in  the  em- 
pire the  able  General  Marcian,  and  in  both  these  Leo 
and  the  catholic  faith  found  old  and  tried  friends. 
Instantly  the  ecclesiastical  atmosphere  began  to  clear. 
Anatolius  of  Constantinople  signed  the  famous  Epistle 
to  Flavian  which  was  the  condition  of  communion  with 
Rome,  and  was  ranged  on  the  side  of  Leo.  The 
Eastern  bishops  who  had  been  intimidated  into  com- 
pliance with  the  decisions  of  Ephesus  breathed  again 
and  one  by  one  explained  and  recanted,  and  every- 
thing bade  fair  to  fall  back  of  its  own  accord  into  the 
orthodox  channel. 

Marcian  had  been  prompt  to  take  up  Leo's  desire 
for  a  really  ecumenical  council,  but  Leo  himself  now 
under  the  changed  aspect  of  matters  began  to  hesitate, 
especially  since  Marcian  while  anxious  to  concede 
everything  else  to  him  seemed  firmly  and  quietly  to 
disregard  his  request  that  the  council  should  depart 
from  precedent  and  go  to  the  West.  But  matters 
had  gone  too  far;  the  council  was  called,  first  for 


Council  of  CJialcedon.  251 

Nicaea  but  subsequently  for  Chalcedon;  and  Leo, 
only  stipulating  that  dogmatic  questions  should  not 
be  stirred  anew  and  treated  as  doubtful  or  unsettled, 
prepared  to  take  the  leading  part  in  it. 

The  time  and  conditions  all  happily  conspired 
to  favor  the  views  and  designs  of  Leo,  which  were 
not  wholly  restricted,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  end, 
to  a  dogmatic  interest  in  the  church's  faith.  The 
imperial  courts  East  and  West  were  wholly  with  him. 
Dioscorus  was  involved  in  the  ruin  that  the  cause 
of  Eutyches  had  brought  upon  itself  by  the  proceed- 
ings of  Ephesus.  In  all  the  church  there  was  not  a 
single  commanding  personality  to  stand  by  his  side 
and  share  with  him  the  influence  and  honors  that 
were  to  be  all  his  own.  The  council  though  sum- 
moned by  the  emperor  was  assembled  by  his  au- 
thority— "  te  auctore,  "  Marcian  had  written  to  him — 
and  was  to  be  presided  over  by  his  legates. 

The  Council  of  Chalcedon  met  early  in  October 
and  was  composed  from  first  to  last  of  over  six 
hundred  bishops.  Dioscorus  having  entered  and 
taken  his  seat  was  made  to  leave  it  and  take  his  place 
among  those  under  accusation.  When  Theodoret 
and  those  deposed  at  Ephesus  entered  as  members, 
there  was  a  loud  outcry  from  the  opposite  side  against 
their  reception,  but  they  were  admitted  as  accusers. 

The  council  began  its  proceedings  by  ratifying  the 
decisions  of  the  preceding  ecumenical  ones,  Nicaea, 
Constantinople,  and  Ephesus,  with  apparently  for  the 
first  time  some  discussion  of  the  verbal  differences 
introduced  into  the  Nicene  Symbol  upon  no  recorded 
authority,  to  which  allusion  has  already  been  made. 


252  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

Charges  were  brought  by  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum, 
the  original  accuser  of  Eutyches,  against  Dioscorus 
for  his  treatment  of  Flavian  and  himself  at  the  Latro- 
cinium.  Both  Dioscorus  and  Eutyches  were  con- 
demned and  excommunicated. 

Leo  had  stipulated  that  the  council  should  make 
no  new  definition  of  the  faith,  assuming  that  it  was 
already  determined  and  sufficiently  stated  in  his 
Tome,  which  was  now  generally  accepted.  But 
Marcian  was  resolved  that  the  two  parties  should  not 
separate  without  putting  their  own  hands  to  a  formula 
of  concord  which  should  compose  their  differences 
and  insure  peace.  Without  dwelling  upon  the  suc- 
cessive steps  by  which  this  end  was  secured,  we  may 
now  pass  to  a  consideration  of  the  general  dogmatic 
results  of  the  great  Council  of  Chalcedon,  which  have 
controlled  the  faith  of  the  catholic  church  from  that 
time  to  this,  with  only  a  few  supplementary  and 
explanatory  additions  by  the  later  general  councils 
of  Constantinople. 

In  the  first  place  the  catholic  creed,  as  has  been 
said,  was  recited  and  accepted  separately  in  both  its 
forms,  that  of  Nicaea  and  that  of  Constantinople,  and 
the  Council  of  Ephesus  was  recognized  as  ecumenical. 
"  On  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,"  it  was  declared, 
"  those  creeds  required  no  further  explanation  nor 
was  any  other  faith  to  be  taught  or  creed  proposed 
for  acceptance  to  converts  from  what  heresy  soever, 
under  pain  of  deposition  in  the  case  of  the  clergy  and 
excommunication  in  that  of  the  laity."  On  the 
mystery  of  the  incarnation  the  synodical  letters  of 
Cyril  to  Nestorius  and  the  Easterns  and  the  Epistle 


The  Chalcedonian  Decrees.  253 

of  Leo  to  Flavian  were  received  as  correct  expositions 
of  the  truth,  the  former  as  against  the  heresy  of  Nes- 
torius,  the  latter  against  the  opposite  one  of  Eutyches. 
So  far  only  the  council  was  disposed  to  go,  but 
Marcian  required  that  it  should  make  a  definition  of 
its  own  upon  the  point  immediately  at  issue.  After 
much  vacillation  from  side  to  side  and  much  firm 
insistence  and  even  suggestion  on  the  part  of  the 
emperor,  the  famous  symbol  of  Chalcedon  was  passed 
and  all  the  above-stated  action  appended  to  it  as 
constituting  together  the  Chalcedonian  Decrees.  On 
October  25,  451,  the  action  was  subscribed  by  the 
whole  council,  the  Roman  legates  alone  attesting  that 
they  subscribed  but  did  not  define.  Marcian  and 
Pulcheria  attended  in  state  the  closing  scene  and  the 
emperor  modestly  and  appropriately  addressed  the 
parting  bishops  in  much  the  same  spirit  and  with 
quite  the  impressiveness  of  Constantine  at  Nicaea. 

With  regard  to  the  doctrinal  formularies  included 
in  the  decrees,  it  is  of  course  unnecessary  to  say  any- 
thing further  of  the  creed  or  creeds.  We  may  pass 
by  also,  as  already  considered,  the  letters  of  Cyril 
exposing  the  fallacies  and  errors  of  Nestorianism.  It 
is  only  as  against  a  specific  heresy  that  the  mind  of 
Cyril  stands  forever  as  the  exponent  of  that  of  the 
church.  Against  the  limitations  and  deficiencies  of 
his  own  views  on  the  opposite  side  all  the  remaining 
action  of  Chalcedon  stands  equally  as  a  corrective  if 
not  a  protest. 

With  regard  to  the  Epistle  to  Flavian  it  is  necessary 
to  say  something  more  in  connection  with  the  subject 
of  Eutychianism  which  is  still  before  us.  The  Tome 


254  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

of  Leo  in  connection  with  the  symbol  of  the  council 
effectually  accomplished  its  immediate  end,  and  the 
council  in  taking  a  positive  step  parallel  and  sup- 
plementary if  not  quite  equal  in  magnitude  and  im- 
portance to  that  of  Nicaea  fully  entitled  itself  to  be 
received  as  ecumenical.  It  fixed  once  for  all  the 
second  of  the  two  constituent  elements  that  were  to 
enter  into  the  church's  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ.  For  the  first  time,  alongside  of  the  Athana- 
sian  statement  of  the  real  divinity  of  the  incarnate 
Lord  was  posited  something  like  a  corresponding  and 
adequate  statement  of  the  reality  and  actuality  of  his 
humanity.  The  two  natures  were  affirmed  to  be  not 
only  in  themselves  and  before  the  union  but  in  their 
union  in  the  one  Christ  each  complete  in  all  the  fac- 
ulties and  functions  proper  to  it,  so  that  our  Lord  is 
in  his  human  life  and  activity  as  complete  and  perfect 
man  as  he  is  also  true  and  perfect  God.  "  Leo  says 
clearly  and  this  constitutes  his  merit  that  the  funda- 
mental truth  of  Christianity  is  sacrificed  quite  as  much 
by  a  curtailment  of  the  humanity  as  by  a  curtailment 
of  the  divinity  of  Christ  "  (Dorner).  "  God  so  became 
man  that  each  nature  and  substance  preserved  its 
distinctive  characteristics  while  both  were  conjoined 
in  one  person."  The  true  God  was  born  in  the  entire 
nature  of  a  true  man ;  he  was  totus  in  suis,  totus  in 
nostris.  As  the  divinity  was  in  no  wise  diminished 
or  changed  by  incarnation  in  humanity,  so  the  hu- 
manity in  no  sense  ceased  to  be  itself  or  to  act  accord- 
ing to  its  own  constitution  and  laws  by  assumption 
into  the  deity. 

Substantially  identical  in  position  with  Leo's  trea- 


The  Chalcedonian  Symbol.  255 

tise  is  the  symbol  of  the  council  itself  which  we  will 
now  give  in  full : 

"  Following  the  example  of  the  holy  fathers,  we 
teach  and  confess  one  and  the  same  Son,  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  same  perfect  in  deity  and  the  same 
perfect  in  humanity,  very  God  and  very  man,  consist- 
ing of  reasonable  soul  and  flesh,  of  the  same  substance 
with  the  Father  as  touching  his  Godhead,  of  the  same 
substance  with  us  as  touching  his  humanity ;  in  all 
things  like  to  us,  without  sin  ;  begotten  of  the  Father 
as  touching  his  Godhead  before  the  aeons ;  begotten 
in  the  latter  day  for  our  redemption  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  the  mother  of  God,  as  touching  his  humanity  ; 
one  and  the  same  Christ,  Son,  Lord,  only-begotten, 
in  two  natures  acknowledged  unmixed,  unchanged, 
undivided ;  so  that  the  distinction  of  nature  was  never 
abolished  by  the  union  but  rather  the  peculiarity  of 
each  preserved  and  combined  into  one  person  and 
one  hypostasis ;  not  one,  severed  and  divided  into 
two  persons,  but  one  and  the  same  Son  and  only- 
begotten,  him  who  is  God,  Logos  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  And  inasmuch  as  the  holy  synod  has  for- 
mularized  these  things  in  all  aspects  with  all  accuracy 
and  care,  it  decrees  that  it  be  not  allowed  to  propound 
any  other  faith  either  in  writings  or  in  thought  or 
to  teach  it  to  others.  Whosoever  dareth  to  act  in 
opposition  to  this  decree  shall  be  deposed  if  of  the 
clergy,  shall  be  excommunicated  if  of  the  laity." 

The  general  result  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  has 
been  summed  up- substantially  as  follows:  It  is  con- 
ceded to  be  not  improbable  that  personally  both 
Nestorius  and  Eutyches  were  treated  unjustly  by  the 


256  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

Councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon.  They  suffered 
not  so  much  for  principles  distinctly  held  or  avowed 
by  them  as  for  consequences  deduced  by  others 
from  their  teaching.  "  But  although  the  synod  may 
have  been  unjust  in  condemning  the  men,  it  was  not 
wrong  in  deciding  that  the  two  theories  of  Nestori- 
anism  and  Eutychianism,  to  which  henceforth  a  dog- 
matical instead  of  a  merely  historical  significance 
attached,  should  be  anticipatorily  laid  down  as  buoys, 
pointing  out  to  the  church  the  middle  course  along 
which  its  voyage  must  proceed.  The  symbol  of 
Chalcedon  may  be  characterized  as  a  declaration  on 
the  part  of  the  church  that  no  doctrine  of  the  person 
of  Christ  can  lay  claim  to  the  name  of  Christian  which 
puts  a  double  Christ  in  the  place  of  the  incarnate  Son 
of  God  or  which  teaches  either  a  mere  conversion  of 
God  into  a  man  or,  vice  versa,  of  a  man  into  God  " 
(Dorner). 

Thus  once  more  was  the  church  brought  to  con- 
demn both  of  the  opposite  tendencies  to  which  the 
course  of  its  thought  was  always  subject.  In  putting 
its  foot  at  once  upon  Nestorianism  and  Eutychian- 
ism it  was  crushing  again  on  the  one  hand  the  Ebion- 
itic  tendency  that  under  its  attack  upon  the  term 
"  Theotocos  "  only  veiled  a  denial  of  the  real  deity  of 
the  Son  of  Mary,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  Docetic 
tendency  that  in  its  assertion  of  the  one  only  incar- 
nate nature  of  our  Lord  taught  the  virtual  absorption 
and  loss  of  his  humanity. 

Nevertheless  the  immediate — and  perhaps  we  ought 
also  to  say,  the  permanent — effect  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  was  and  remains  a  disappointment.  The 


Criticism  of  the   Tome.  257 

church  had  accomplished  in  it  more  than  she  either 
knew  or  intended,  and  it  remained  for  far-off  future 
ages  that  have  scarcely  yet  arrived  to  take  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  at  its  word  and  honestly  con- 
strue the  person  of  our  Lord  in  the  totality  of  his 
manhood  as  well  as  his  Godhead.  It  is  one  of  the 
not  infrequent  instances  in  which  the  collective  voice 
of  the  church  has  seemed  far  in  advance  of  the  indi- 
vidual minds  that  have  given  it  utterance.  Of  this 
there  is  no  better  illustration  than  in  the  case  of 
Leo  himself,  the  master  mind  and  controlling  spirit, 
though  not  personally  present  at  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon. 

We  have  not  underrated  the  greatness  of  either  the 
mind  or  the  services  to  Christianity  and  civilization 
of  Leo,  as  a  far-seeing  statesman  and  an  able  and 
powerful  organizer  and  administrator.  But  if  Leo's 
was  a  great  practical  it  was  not  an  equally  great 
speculative,  philosophical  or  theological  genius.  His 
mind,  character  and  policy  were  the  highest  reach 
and  illustration  of  that  type  which  we  have  already 
briefly  described  as  distinctively  Western  and  Roman. 
Incapable  by  mental  constitution  of  contributing  to 
the  scientific  formation  and  development  of  doctrine, 
averse  by  policy  to  taking  part  in  it,  his  genius  lay  in 
the  line  of  the  practical  wisdom  and  common  sense 
whose  function  in  the  church  was  to  pass  judgment 
upon  the  results  of  thought  and  impart  to  them  the 
authority  and  weight  of  catholic  authority.  The  merit 
and  value  of  his  Tome  arose  from  the  fact  that  while 
the  parties  engaged  in  the  problem  of  thinking  out 
and  stating  the  opposite  aspects  of  the  person  of 


258  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

Christ  were  unavoidably  liable  to  the  double  danger, 
each,  of  ignoring  both  its  own  error  and  its  antago- 
nist's truth,  Leo  was  in  the  position  of  an  equally 
interested  and  personally  unoccupied  spectator  who 
could  see  the  drift  and  danger  of  both.  The  bril- 
liancy, power  and  apparent  originality  of  the  Tome 
are  mainly  not  in  the  thought  but  in  the  statement 
and  in  the  incomparable  tone  of  authority  in  which 
the  culture  of  ages  almost  attains  perfection.  He 
excludes  the  error  on  both  sides,  he  affirms  the  truth 
on  both.  But  he  did  neither  of  these  in  such  a  way 
that  both  sides  could  see  it,  and  therefore  he  did  it 
to  the  permanent  satisfaction  of  neither  side. 

Why  did  not  the  solution  of  Chalcedon  satisfy? 
Leo  saw  that  the  tendency  of  Nestorius  was  to  a 
higher  Ebionism  and  he  accepted  and  reaffirmed  the 
sentence  of  Ephesus  upon  him  and  it ;  he  saw  that  the 
end  of  Eutychianism  was  a  subtle  but  patent  Doce- 
tism  and  he  procured  a  final  sentence  upon  it  at 
Chalcedon.  Thus  the  real  deity  and  the  real  hu- 
manity, the  presence  together  in  the  one  person  of 
the  Lord  of  two  natures,  the  divine  and  human,  dis- 
tinct, unconverted  and  unconfused,  yet  indivisible 
and  inseparable,  were  affirmed  as  plainly  and  posi- 
tively as  words  could  express  them.  One  might  ask, 
What  more  was  needed  or  possible  ?  The  answer  is 
that  the  mere  affirmation,  no  matter  on  what  author- 
ity, of  two  opposite  and  apparently  irreconcilable  facts 
is  not  a  real  and  therefore  cannot  be  a  satisfactory 
solution  of  the  problem  of  their  coexistence.  The 
only  solution  is  so  to  explain  the  facts  as  to  show  that 
they  are  not  irreconcilable  but  rather  mutually  require 


Its  Insufficiency.  259 

or  postulate  each  other.  The  difficulty  with  Leo,  as 
with  the  mind  of  the  church  as  yet,  is  that  he  did  not 
himself  so  understand  either  the  divine  or  the  human 
nature  in  our  Lord  as  to  present  a  satisfactory  and 
convincing  picture  of  their  unity.  His  unity  of  the 
two  natures  in  the  one  person  was  simply  an  affirma- 
tion. It  was  not  so  construed  or  explained  as  to 
render  it  to  the  speculative  or  reflective  mind  any  less 
inconceivable  or  impossible  than  it  was  before. 

Leo  however  and  all  the  West  with  him  were  per- 
fectly satisfied  that  the  Tome  and  the  symbol  had 
done  all  that  was  necessary  and  that  the  question 
was  settled  forever.  Jesus  Christ  in  his  incarnation 
is  very  God  and  very  man,  totus  in  suis,  totus  in 
nostris,  complete  in  all  that  constitutes  Godhead, 
complete  in  all  that  constitutes  manhood.  But  how 
can  this  be  so  ?  And  how  is  it  so  ?  The  answer  with 
them  was,  practically :  By  the  omnipotence  of  God, 
and  the  authority  of  Leo's  Tome  and  the  symbol  of 
Chalcedon.  That  part  of  the  mind  of  the  church 
which  had  created  the  symbols  could  not  be  satisfied 
with  such  a  closure  of  the  question.  Divine  omnipo- 
tence and  human  authority  combined  cannot  of  them- 
selves constitute  a  dogma.  That  requires  in  addition 
a  doKei,  a  placet,  from  the  universal  spiritual  under- 
standing and  experience  of  spiritual  and  rational  men. 
The  full  question  actually  before  the  church  at  the 
time  was  not  merely :  Is  Christ  both  God  and  man  ? 
That,  in  terms  at  least,  all  held.  But  it  was :  How  is 
he  both  God  and  man ;  how  shall  we  blend  and 
combine  the  two  into  one,  and  see  and  construe  and 
accept  the  unity  ?  It  was  only  in  the  inability  and 


260  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

the  effort  to  do  this  that  one  side  fell  into  an  unreality 
of  the  deity,  and  the  other  into  an  absorption  and  loss 
of  the  humanity.  Leo  succeeded  admirably  in  affirm- 
ing but  not  at  all  in  explaining  the  duality  in  the 
unity  and  the  unity  in  the  duality.  And  the  Greek 
world  at  least  went  on  in  its  task  of  thinking  out  the 
problem  as  though  nothing  had  been  said  at  Chal- 
cedon. 

It  is  easy  to  show  that  in  this  instance,  as  in  many 
others,  without  a  proper  conception  of  the  dion  it  is 
impossible  to  hold  the  ori.  Leo  himself,  through  dis- 
regard or  misconception  of  how  Christ  is  complete  in 
both  natures,  unconsciously  does  not  hold  the  com- 
pleteness of  both  natures  in  him.  Indeed  it  is  scarcely 
an  exaggeration  to  say  that  Leo  could  not  reconcile 
the  unity  with  the  duality  for  the  reason  that  he  held 
neither  a  real  duality  nor  a  true  unity.  Let  us  test 
this  in  detail. 

First  with  regard  to  the  two  natures:  Our  Lord, 
he  says,  is  in  his  incarnation  totus  in  suis,  totns  in 
nostris.  That  is,  he  is  complete  in  all  the  attributes 
of  his  deity,  which  are  unchanged  by  his  assumption 
of  humanity,  and  complete  in  all  the  characteristics, 
the  faculties,  functions  and  activities  of  our  humanity, 
which  is  not  supplanted  or  swallowed  up  but  only 
quickened,  heightened  and  realized  by  its  union 
with  deity.  This  is  what  his  words  mean,  and  they 
are  true. 

But  when  we  come  to  ascertain  what  are  the  nostra 
in  which  Leo  sees  our  Lord's  humanity  complete, 
what  indeed  are  they  ?  He  says,  for  example,  very 
truly  and  admirably — and  this  is  what  is  catholic  in 


Defects  of  Leo's  Christology.          261 

him- — that  "  it  is  the  catholic  faith  that  in  Christ  Jesus 
there  is  neither  humanity  without  true  divinity  nor. 
divinity  without  true  humanity.  Neither  of  these 
received  without  the  other  would  avail  for  our  salva- 
tion and  it  is  of  equal  peril  to  believe  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  either  God  only  without  man  or  man  only 
without  God."  But  he  goes  on  to  say  that  "the 
denial  of  a  true  flesh  is  fatal."  Why  ?  Only  "  because 
it  is  a  denial  of  the  capacity  for  the  bodily  pains  and 
sufferings  which  our  Lord  endures  for  our  salvation." 
There  is  no  really  human  significance  given  by  Leo 
to  any  activity  or  experience  of  our  Lord  higher  than 
those  which  are  corporeal.  The  Son  of  God  has 
merely  assumed  a  nature  in  which  it  may  be  possible 
for  deity  to  undergo  experiences  and  sufferings  of 
which  it  is  incapable  in  its  own  nature.  All  the  action 
of  our  Lord  in  the  flesh  is  only  divine,  it  is  only  his 
passion  which  is  human.  On  the  contrary  we  say 
that  if  Christ  was  totus  in  nostris,  then  he  was  human 
in  all  the  activities  as  well  as  the  passivities  of  a  ra- 
tional, free,  moral  and  spiritual,  and  not  only  a  cor- 
poreal, manhood.  His  highest  act  of  faith  in  God, 
his  supremest  attainment  of  self-sacrificing  love  and 
obedience,  his  entire  conquest  of  sin  and  victory  over 
death,  were  as  truly  human  acts  and  activities — and 
needed  a  thousandfold  more  for  our  salvation  to  be 
truly  human — as  his  merely  bodily  passion.  It  is 
characteristic  of  the  position  still  occupied  by  Leo  to 
see  the  reality  of  our  Lord's  humanity  in  the  facts  of 
his  hunger,  thirst  and  weariness,  of  his  physical  birth 
and  death, — that  is  to  say  in  functions  (tvepydai) 
which  are  not  distinctively  human  at  all  but  only 


262  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

animal,  which  so  far  from  being  the  whole  of  us 
as  men  do  not  even  belong  to  us  distinctively  as 
men. 

In  the  second  place,  not  only  does  Leo  incompletely 
apprehend  the  nostra  or  "  ours  "  in  which  the  church 
through  him  affirms  our  Lord's  human  completeness, 
but  he  introduces  into  our  Lord's  personal  conscious- 
ness and  will  and  acts  a  duality,  different  indeed  from 
that  charged  against  Nestorianism  but  hardly  less 
objectionable  in  itself.  The  human  Jesus  thinks, 
knows,  wills  and  does  this  as  God  and  that  as  man. 
As  man  he  is  hungry,  as  God  he  feeds  the  multitude ; 
as  God  he  says,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one  ; "  as  man, 
"My  Father  is  greater  than  I;"  as  man,  "Where 
have  ye  laid  him?  "  as  God,  "  Lazarus,  come  forth." 
He  thus  humanly  manifests,  exhibits  to  our  very 
senses,  a  double  consciousness,  volition  and  action, 
passing  at  will  from  one  to  the  other  aspect  of  what 
cannot  but  appear  to  us  as  a  twofold  personality. 

The  above  is  sufficient  to  indicate  the  grounds  of 
the  charge  that  Leo  had  not  yet  arrived  at  a  satisfac- 
tory conception  or  appreciation  either  of  our  Lord's 
completeness  in  each  nature  or  of  his  unity  in  both. 
But  neither  had  he  any  conception  of  any  lack  in 
his  own  views  or  in  their  expression;  and  the  mis- 
fortune is  that  at  this  critical  moment  his  supreme 
personal  and  official  weight  of  authority  closed  the 
great  living  question  pressing  upon  men's  minds  and 
hearts  for  further  solution,  and  not  so  much  settled 
it  as  fixed  it  as  it  stood,  forever  unsettled,  in  the 
Western  Church.  For  the  contribution  from  Rome  to 
the  supplementary  work  of  the  Sixth  General  Council 


Political  Schemes  of  Leo.  263 

is  only  a  reiteration  of  Leo's  position,  and  further 
than  that  Rome  has  not  moved  since. 

The  doctrinal  results  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
were  sufficiently  satisfactory  to  Leo,  although  he 
would  have  preferred  that  it  should  not  define  but 
simply  accept  his  own  formula  of  the  faith  ;  but  there 
were  other  results  that  were  far  from  satisfactory  to 
him.  It  was  characteristic  of  Leo  that  throughout 
his  career  he  subordinated  and  consecrated  his  great 
personal  gifts  and  powers  to  the  task  of  consolidating 
and  extending  the  paramount  authority  of  the  Roman 
see.  Beside  that  his  far-seeing  statesmanship  fully 
appreciated  the  practical  importance  and  even  neces- 
sity of  this,  the  traditional  theory  of  the  divinely 
derived  supremacy  of  the  chair  of  St.  Peter  had  at- 
tained in  his  hands  a  relative  if  not  yet  its  most  fully 
developed  completeness.  And  there  is  no  question 
that  apart  from  his  dogmatic  interest  in  the  faith  of 
the  church  he  was  actuated  by  the  perhaps  secondary 
but  certainly  powerful  motive  and  hope  of  turning 
his  doctrinal  influence  and  weight  to  good  account  in 
the  extension  of  his  practical  scheme.  It  was  the  first 
opportunity  the  Roman  see  had  had  of  extending  its 
prestige  and  authority  in  the  East  through  any  para- 
mount or  even  prominent  part  in  a  general  council, 
and  everything  conspired  as  we  have  seen  to  make 
it  a  very  great  opportunity. 

Leo  had  been  anxious,  in  the  interest  both  of  the 
doctrinal  and  the  practical  ends  which  he  had  in  view, 
that  the  council  should  meet  at  Rome  or  should  not 
meet  at  all ;  but  this  part  of  his  request  Marcian  si- 
lently but  firmly  ignored.  The  emperor  was  through- 


264  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

out  resolved  to  further  the  doctrinal  purposes  of  Leo 
but  quietly  to  thwart  and  defeat  his  political  scheme 
of  aggrandizing  Rome,  especially  at  the  expense  of 
Constantinople.  The  council  itself  too  seemed  to  be 
conscious  of  Leo's  designs,  and  while  it  made  many 
and  great  admissions  and  concessions  upon  the  surface, 
its  general  disposition  and  its  final  action  were  to  set 
itself  against  them.  It  had  been  a  matter  of  tradi- 
tional right  and  propriety  that  the  ecumenical  discus- 
sions and  determinations  of  the  catholic  faith  should 
take  place  in  the  East,  where  they  could  be  conducted 
by  Greek  thought  and  in  the  Greek  tongue ;  and  the 
suggestion  of  a  general  council  to  be  held  in  the  West 
was  itself  received  as  an  innovation.  The  threat  by 
which  Marcian  finally  brought  the  bishops  to  agree- 
ment upon  the  symbol  was  that  if  the  council  adjourned 
without  agreeing  it  would  be  to  meet  again  in  Rome. 
Indeed  the  council  in  itself  was  not  only  not  in  sym- 
pathy with  what  might  be  Leo's  practical  schemes 
but  if  left  to  itself  its  doctrinal  conclusions  would 
have  been  both  conceived  and  expressed  in  far  greater 
independence  of  him.  Nothing  but  the  most  pointed 
intervention  of  the  emperor  brought  either  the  mean- 
ing or  the  form  of  the  decrees  sufficiently  near  to  his 
mind  to  avert  on  the  part  of  the  Roman  legates  the 
withholding  of  their  signatures  and  their  withdrawal 
from  the  synod. 

We  see  thus  three  elements  finally  combined  in  the 
decisions  of  Chalcedon,  Leo,  Marcian  and  the  body 
of  the  council  itself,  no  two  of  which  were  wholly  at 
one.  The  emperor  alone  perhaps  was  successful  and 
satisfied  in  all  points  with  the  result.  He  secured 


Primacy  of  Rome.  265 

his  formula  of  concord ;  he  kept  the  council  in  dog- 
matic accord  with  the  mind  of  Leo ;  and  at  the  same 
time  he  had,  as  we  shall  see,  advanced  the  ecclesias- 
tical claims  of  the  imperial  see  of  Constantinople  and 
thwarted  the  aggressive  ambition  of  that  of  Rome. 
With  regard  to  the  council  we  shall  see  immediately 
and  abundantly  that  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon  were 
rather  the  beginning  than  the  end  of  controversy  with 
regard  to  the  main  subject-matter  of  its  action. 

As  for  Leo,  while  the  dogmatic  result  of  the  coun- 
cil was  on  the  whole  a  triumph  for  him,  largely 
through  the  emperor,  his  practical  plans,  at  least  not 
without  the  emperor,  sustained  a  distinct  rebuff. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Second  General 
Council,  held  in  Constantinople,  had  decreed  that 
the  bishop  of  that  city  should  have  the  primacy  of 
honor  after  Rome,  on  the  ground  that  "  it  is  itself 
New  Rome."  This  decree  had  long  given  great  offence 
and  had  not  been  acknowledged  at  Rome,  because  it 
assumes  that  the  primacy  accorded  to  it  rested  upon 
purely  secular  and  political  grounds  and  not  upon  a 
divine  right.  At  Chalcedon  it  was  thought  necessary 
for  practical  reasons  and  was  desired  that  the  juris- 
diction of  Constantinople  which  had  been  growing  up 
under  that  decree  should  be  reaffirmed  and  confirmed. 
The  emperor,  the  senators  and  the  people  of  the  im- 
perial capital  were  interested  in  pressing  the  measure, 
and  the  council  was  not  averse  to  reiterating  its  own 
version  of  the  primacy  which  had  from  the  first  nat- 
urally attached  to  the  political  and  secular  centre  and 
capital  of  the  world.  With  this  view  the  twenty- 
eighth  canon  was  adopted,  which  provides  as  follows : 


266  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

"  The  fathers  gave  with  reason  the  primacy  to  old 
Rome  because  that  was  the  royal  city ;  and  with  the 
same  object  in  view  the  one  hundred  and  eighty  pious 
bishops  gave  equal  primacy  to  the  chair  of  New 
Rome."  This  canon  confirming  the  action  of  the  one 
hundred  and  eighty  bishops  at  Constantinople  was 
enacted  against  the  determined  opposition  of  the 
Roman  legates  and  with  full  knowledge  of  the  fact 
that  Leo  and  his  predecessors  had  steadily  refused  to 
acknowledge  the  action  then  ratified  and  confirmed. 
The  ground  of  offence  is  thus  stated  by  Leo  himself: 
"  Secular  importance  cannot  confer  ecclesiastical  priv- 
ilege " ;  "  Alia  est  ratio  rerum  ssecularium,  alia  divi- 
narum."  The  Roman  bishops  based  their  claims  upon 
the  divine  prerogatives  of  St.  Peter.  The  council  as 
yet  continued  to  base  them  upon  the  "  gift  of  the 
fathers,"  and  stated  the  reason  of  them  to  be  that  the 
natural  capital  of  the  world  ought  to  be  the  spiritual 
capital  of  the  church. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

THE   MONOPHYSITES   AND   THE    SECOND    COUNCIL 
OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

HE  action  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  was 
the  first  general  recognition  and  triumph 
of  that  side  of  the  truth  of  Christ  which 
had  been  represented  by  Antioch.  How 
barren  the  victory  was  and  was  to  remain 
for  many  ages  could  scarcely  be  appreciated  at  the 
time.  In  terms  it  was  all  or  almost  all  that  could 
be  desired.  What  more  can  be  said  than  that  our 
incarnate  Lord  is  totus  in  nostris,  if  only  the  words 
be  allowed  to  mean  all  they  say  ?  And  what  less  or 
more  do  they  say  than  that  he  was  in  all  points  like 
as  we  are,  sin  only  excepted  ?  But  unfortunately,  as 
we  have  seen,  neither  Leo  nor  the  church  fully  meant 
as  yet  all  the  truth  that  in  the  providence  of  God  they 
were  made  to  bear  witness  to.  The  gain  was  there, 
but  it  was  stored  up  and  laid  aside  for  future  use. 
The  two  facts,  of  the  very  Godhead  and  the  very 
manhood,  of  the  completeness  of  the  two  natures  in 
the  unity  of  a  single  personality,  were  destined  to  lie 
side  by  side  in  the  treasury  of  the  church's  thought 
a  long  time  before  they  should  enter  into  a  really 
organic  and  vital  union.  Indeed  have  they  done  so 

267 


268  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

yet?  What  more  can  we  claim  than  that  we  more 
and  more  see  that  in  themselves  they  do  exist  in  such 
a  union  and  that  more  and  more  also  we  appreciate 
the  fact  that  the  integrity  of  neither  can  be  truly 
maintained  at  the  cost  of  that  of  the  other?  Against 
the  council's  own  symbol  there  is  nothing  to  be  said. 
Nor  anything  against  that  in  the  Tome  of  Leo  which 
was  accepted  by  the  council  as  the  statement  of  its 
own  doctrinal  position.  What  we  object  to  in  Leo  is 
not  his  facts  but  his  philosophy.  That  he  marked 
out  the  channel  for  the  church's  future  course  and 
as  it  were  located  the  Scylla  and  Charybdis  between 
which  it  was  necessary  to  steer  is  a  service  of  which 
the  credit  can  never  be  taken  away  from  him.  But 
it  remains  that  the  hypostatical  union  as  he  under- 
stood it  was  still  very  far  from  being  the  true  organic 
unity  of  Godhead  and  manhood  in  the  person  of  our 
Lord.  And  there  was  this  irreparable  harm,  that  the 
weight  of  his  personal  greatness  in  combination  with 
the  now  full-grown  authority  of  the  chair  of  St.  Peter, 
at  least  in  the  West,  was  sufficient  almost  to  arrest 
the  further  development  of  the  truth  of  Christ.  The 
East  will  indeed  continue  for  a  few  centuries  longer 
to  think,  but  its  conclusions  will  beat  themselves  in 
vain  against  the  rock  of  Roman  fixedness  and  stability. 
And  the  East  itself,  without  the  balance  and  correc- 
tion of  the  now  no  longer  plastic  and  responsive  prac- 
tical good  sense  of  the  West,  will  think  more  wildly 
and  futilely  ;  until,  with  one  final  summation  of  itself 
in  John  of  Damascus,  its  thought  too  will  sink  ex- 
hausted into  a  stereotyped  orthodoxy  incapable  of 
further  change. 


Revolt  Against  Decrees  of  Chalcedon.  269 

For  the  present  then  the  advocates  of  the  integrity 
of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  were  satisfied,  and  there 
was  no  further  complaint  from  the  Antiochian  side. 
It  was  only  when  considerably  later  the  representa- 
tives of  the  actuality  of  our  Lord's  humanity  under- 
took to  develop  and  apply  the  Chalcedonian  definition 
in  accordance  with  the  truth  of  its  letter  that  it  was 
discovered  that  that  was  not  intended  and  would  not 
be  permitted.  The  trouble  now  was  on  the  other  or 
Alexandrian  side,  with  the  many  who  could  not  see 
that  with  the  Chalcedonian  assertion  of  the  two 
natures  any  satisfactory  representation  was  given 
them  of  the  unity  of  our  Lord's  person.  The  result 
of  the  experiment  at  Chalcedon,  and  especially  of 
Leo's  own  presentation,  was  rather  to  convince  very 
many  that  a  distinction  of  the  natures  after  the  union 
was  inconsistent  with  any  real  preservation  of  the 
unity,  and  there  arose  a  school  of  scientific  Monoph- 
ysitism  which  was  often  more  than  a  match  in  argu- 
ment for  the  truer  intuition  but  inferior  science  and 
logic  of  the  church  teachers.  This  new  movement  we 
shall  first  briefly  sketch  historically  and  then  endeavor 
to  characterize  doctrinally. 

The  publication  of  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon,  as  has 
been  said,  was  only  the  signal  for  a  new  outbreak  of 
Monophysitism  throughout  the  East.  To  the  great 
body  of  monks  especially  it  came  with  the  meaning 
and  force  of  a  compulsory  universal  establishment  of 
Nestorianism.  Everywhere  the  most  determined 
opposition  was  instantly  developed;  first  of  course 
and  chiefly  at  Alexandria,  but  also  in  Jerusalem, 
Constantinople,  and  even  Antioch  the  Monophysites 


270  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

exhibited  an  unparalleled  and  violent  activity.  Mar- 
cian's  decrees  enforcing  uniformity  followed  one  an- 
other in  rapid  succession.  In  A.D.  457  he  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Leo  I.,  who  perplexed  by  the  fierceness 
and  apparent  hopelessness  of  the  strife  conceived  the 
idea  of  testing  the  real  mind  of  the  church  by  a  very 
natural  though  novel  method.  All  the  metropolitans 
were  instructed  to  procure  the  judgments  of  the 
bishops  subject  to  them  not  only  upon  certain  issues 
raised  by  the  enforcement  but  also  upon  the  general 
question  of  the  validity  of  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon. 
Some  sixteen  hundred  bishops  responded,  from  all 
quarters  of  the  empire,  and  the  verdict  was  over- 
whelmingly in  favor  of  the  decrees.  Nevertheless  the 
Monophysites,  making  up  in  activity  for  their  inferi- 
ority in  numbers,  continued  more  than  to  hold  their 
own  in  the  great  centres  of  the  East. 

In  the  year  470  Peter  the  Fuller  succeeded  in  dis- 
placing the  orthodox  incumbent  from  the  patriarchal 
throne  of  Antioch.  This  Peter  was  very  active  and 
successful  in  propagating  Monophysite  views  and 
sentiments  by  incorporating  them  through  liturgical 
changes  into  the  public  worship  of  the  church.  Many 
of  his  interpolations  acquired  immediate  and  general 
popularity  and  were  adopted  even  in  catholic  churches. 
Thus  in  the  Trisagion  he  introduced  a  clause  in  which 
the  triune  God  is  addressed  as  having  suffered  for 
us :  "  Holy  God,  Holy  Strong  One,  Holy  Immortal 
One,  who  for  our  sakes  wast  crucified  for  us,  have 
mercy  upon  us!"  Thus  under  the  form  of  Theopas- 
chitism  was  revived  the  old  spirit  and  principle  of 
Patripassianism,  and  it  became  perhaps  the  most 


Monophysite  Propaganda.  271 

insidious  and  successful  of  the  aspects  in  which  Mo- 
nophysitism  continued  not  only  to  hold  its  own  against 
the  church  but  also  to  make  its  way  within  it,  until  in 
the  Fifth  General  Council  it  won  a  decisive  success 
if  not  a  permanent  victory.  The  phrases  "  mother  of 
God,"  "  God  was  crucified  "  and  the  like,  while  con- 
taining a  precious  truth  which  the  piety  of  the  oppo- 
site side  was  not  disposed  to  contradict,  were  never- 
theless characteristic  of  Monophysitism  and  were  part 
of  a  systematic  reference  of  the  whole  incarnate  ac- 
tivity of  our  Lord  to  his  Godhead,  and  an  ignoring 
of  all  personally  human  activities  in  him.  It  is  to  be 
observed  that  this  aspect  of  Christianity  always 
appeals  most  powerfully  to  the  heart  of  the  popular 
faith.  In  proportion  as  it  is  less  moral  it  has  the 
appearance  of  being  more  religious.  The  more 
mystically  we  surrender  our  minds  and  wills  and 
selves  to  the  operations  of  the  divine  grace,  and  the 
less  reflectively  we  strive  to  realize  our  own  parts  in 
the  process  of  regaining  our  freedom  and  life  in  Christ 
Jesus,  the  more  honor  we  feel  ourselves  to  be  doing 
to  God  who  is  our  sole  salvation. 

The  Emperor  Leo  I.  was  succeeded  A.D.  474  by 
Zeno,  who  favored  the  catholics,  until  in  the  year  482 
he  was  led  into  a  fatal  scheme  of  reconciliation  the 
effect  of  which  was  only  the  more  wildly  and  help- 
lessly to  divide  the  two  parties.  We  have  not  thought 
it  necessary  for  our  purpose  to  go  into  the  details  of 
the  violent  and  often  bloody  strife  that  immediately 
followed  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  Alexandria,  the 
proper  home  of  Monophysitism.  At  the  juncture  we 
have  now  reached  the  rival  claimants  of  the  patriar- 


272  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

chal  throne  were  appealing  to  the  church  at  large  for 
recognition.  Rome  favored  the  orthodox  candidate, 
but  Acacius  of  Constantinople  and  the  Emperor  Zeno 
were  unfortunately  persuaded  that  to  recognize  the 
Monophysite  contestant,  Peter  Mongus,  would  be  to 
begin  at  the  heart  of  all  the  trouble  over  a  gradual 
compromise  and  reconciliation.  Mongus  affected  a 
moderation  and  desire  for  peace  that  lasted  only 
until  he  had  attained  his  object,  but  under  the  influ- 
ence of  his  representations  the  emperor  with  the  aid 
of  Acacius  drew  up  and  issued  an  edict  of  union 
that  was  known  as  the  Henoticon  (evam/rdr).  It 
was  a  confession  of  faith  based  upon  the  first  three 
general  councils  and  ignoring  that  of  Chalcedon.  All 
disputed  terms  and  phrases  were  avoided  and  the 
issues  dividing  the  parties  carefully  kept  out  of  sight. 
The  effect,  as  has  been  said,  was  only  to  multiply  the 
number  of  parties  and  to  increase  the  irritation  be- 
tween them.  Each  side  was  divided  into  two,  of 
which  the  most  politic  and  least  sincere  accepted  the 
compromise,  while  the  zealots  withdrew  into  a  wider 
and  more  embittered  separation.  Then  outside  of 
these  were  the  very  many  of  all  views  who  resented 
the  presumption  of  the  emperor  in  promulgating  a 
doctrinal  formula  in  his  own  name.  The  right  of  the 
emperor  even  to  force  the  church  to  define  and  then 
to  enforce  the  definition  had  been  long  recognized, 
but  Zeno  was  the  first  to  undertake  himself  to  declare 
what  was  the  faith  of  the  church.  Rome  of  course 
resisted  the  compromise ;  Pope  Felix  III.  after  long 
remonstrating  in  vain  excommunicated  Acacius.  The 
excommunication  was  disregarded  in  the  East  and  the 


Justinian  as  Mediator.  273 

result  was  a  schism  which  lasted  for  nearly  forty 
years.  In  491  Zeno  was  succeeded  by  Anastasius, 
who  during  a  reign  of  twenty-four  years  persisted 
faithfully  and  conscientiously  in  carrying  out  a  scheme 
of  conciliation  that  kept  all  the  capitals  of  the  East 
in  perpetual  and  fruitless  turmoil  and  strife.  Justin, 
who  succeeded  to  the  empire  in  5 1 8,  was  orthodox  and 
during  his  reign  of  eleven  years  the  centres  of  contro- 
versy for  the  most  part  returned  to  the  fold  of  Chal- 
cedon.  Acacius  and  the  Emperors  Zeno  and  Anas- 
tasius were  stricken  from  the  diptychs;  communion 
was  resumed  with  Rome  and  the  West ;  Alexandria 
alone  remained  true  to  Monophysitism  and  thither 
the  leaders  of  the  party  betook  themselves  and  bided 
their  time. 

The  long  and  illustrious  reign  of  Justinian  began 
A.D.  527.  The  Empress  Theodora  was  an  ardent 
adherent  of  Monophysitism  and  under  her  patronage 
the  sect  revived  and  reorganized  itself  everywhere. 
Even  in  Constantinople  a  covert  Monophysite  was 
through  her  influence  elevated  to  the  patriarchate. 
Justinian  himself  began  his  reign  as  a  positive  and 
decided  Chalcedonian,  but  was  not  long  in  contracting 
the  imperial  mania  for  acting  the  part  of  a  theological 
as  well  as  political  mediator  between  the  parties.  His 
first  movement  of  concession  toward  the  Monophy- 
sites  was  in  connection  with  the  Theopaschite  contro, 
versy  originated  by  Peter  Fuller's  liturgical  interpola- 
tions. The  popularity  of  the  added  phrase,  "  God 
who  wast  crucified  for  us!"  had  grown  steadily  in 
the  intervening  years.  There  was  a  devotional  and 
religious  element  in  it  that  appealed  to  the  mystical 


274  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

spirit  in  us  which  welcomes  the  closest  approach  and 
identification  of  God  himself  with  us  in  our  extremest 
experiences.  It  seemed  only  to  involve  the  same 
principle  which  the  church  had  already  affirmed  in  its 
formal  adoption  of  the  Thcotocos.  If  it  was  God  who 
was  born  of  the  Virgin,  it  was  God  also  who  was 
crucified  upon  Calvary.  There  was  a  revolt  against 
Leo's  distribution  of  the  actions  and  passions  of  our 
Lord  between  the  Godhead  and  the  manhood,  the 
miracles  to  the  former,  the  sufferings  to  the  latter. 
There  was  but  one  subject  of  all  the  actions  and  the 
passions,  the  divine  Person  incarnate,  and  Leo's  posi- 
tion was  but  a  latent  Nestorianism.  The  liturgical 
formula  had  found  acceptance  in  Constantinople.  In 
Justin's  reign  an  effort  was  made,  but  without  success, 
to  gain  recognition  for  the  amended  form  of  the  Tri- 
sagion.  The  attempt  was  transferred  to  Rome,  where 
Pope  Hormisdas  condemned  the  formula  as  heretical. 
But  under  his  successor  it  found  favor,  and  the  ablest 
Western  theologian  maintained  that  it  was  orthodox 
to  say  that  "  one  of  the  Trinity  was  born  and  was 
crucified."  Justinian's  first  act  of  conciliation  was 
to  sanction  the  formula  by  a  special  edict  issued 
A.D.  533.  Twenty  years  afterward  the  Fifth  General 
Council  anathematized  all  who  should  reject  it. 

Soon  after  his  favorable  edict  Justinian  was  moved 
by  an  exposure  of  the  secret  machinations  of  the 
Monophysites,  under  the  patronage  of  the  empress, 
to  attempt  once  more  a  policy  of  repression  and 
persecution.  This  only  led  to  renewed  trouble,  and 
finally  to  the  revolt  of  the  Monophysite  province  of 
Armenia  to  the  Persians.  The  effect  was  to  bring 


Edict  of  the   Three  Chapters.         275 

back  the  emperor  to  his  plan  of  reconciliation,  and 
not  long  after  began  the  famous  controversy  of  "  the 
Three  Chapters,"  the  most  important  movement  in 
the  present  stage  of  our  subject  since  it  led  to  the 
Fifth  General  Council  and  constituted  its  subject- 
matter. 

It  was  Justinian's  personal  ambition  to  go  to  the 
heart  of  the  whole  matter  and  settle  it  by  a  theologi- 
cal treatise  of  his  own  which  should  convince  the 
Monophy sites  by  answering  all  their  objections  to  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  But  although  ambitious  of 
being  an  authority  and  disposed  to  be  a  despot  in 
spiritual  as  well  as  temporal  matters,  the  emperor  was 
open  to  influence,  sometimes  in  opposite  directions, 
if  judiciously  applied.  He  was  now  persuaded  that 
what  was  needed  and  would  be  efficacious  to  recon- 
cile the  Monophysites  was  formally  to  complete  the 
church's  condemnation  of  Nestorianism ;  and  this 
could  only  be  accomplished  by  condemning  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia  and  at  least  such  of  the  works  of 
Theodoret  and  Ibas  as  were  directed  against  Cyril, 
who  with  the  Monophysites  stood  even  above  Atha- 
nasius  as  the  defender  and  representative  of  the  faith. 
Theodoret  and  Ibas,  who  had  charged  Cyril  with 
Apollinarianism,  had  themselves  been  acquitted  of  all 
charges  of  heresy  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  A 
condemnation  would  be  equally  acceptable  as  against 
them  and  as  a  blow  at  the  authority  of  the  council. 

In  544  Justinian  issued  his  edict  of  the  Three 
Chapters,  in  which  were  anathematized  the  person 
and  the  works  of  Theodore  and  the  particular  works 
but  not  the  persons  of  Theodoret  and  Ibas.  This  act 


276  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

combined  in  a  single  policy  the  emperor,  the  empress 
and  a  certain  portion  of  both  parties,  the  catholics 
being  deterred  by  that  which  most  commended  it  to 
the  Monophysites, — the  fact  namely  that  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  it  contravened  the  action  of  Chalcedon. 
Like  its  predecessors  it  proved  to  be  a  measure  of 
compulsory  conciliation,  which  was  more  successful, 
if  it  was  so,  only  because  the  influence  of  Justinian 
was  more  compelling.  The  Eastern  patriarchs  were 
brought  by  bribery  and  intimidation  to  yield  an  un- 
willing subscription  to  the  edict.  The  chief  opposition 
came  from  North  Africa,  Illyria  and  Dalmatia  where 
the  bishops  refused  to  damn  the  dead  or  to  put  a 
slight  upon  the  decisions  of  Chalcedon.  But  the  most 
remarkable  feature  in  the  controversy  of  the  Three 
Chapters  was  the  relation  to  it  of  the  Pope  Vigilius. 
Vigilius  had  secured  the  papal  chair  through  the  in- 
fluence of  Theodora  at  the  price  of  his  cooperation 
with  the  Monophysite  leaders  in  opposition  to  the 
Chalcedonian  Decrees.  He  had  put  in  writing  his 
substantial  agreement  with  them,  had  rejected  the 
doctrine  of  the  two  natures  after  the  union,  and  had 
anathematized  those  who,  with  Leo,  distributed  the 
acts  and  sufferings  of  our  Lord  between  his  deity  and 
his  humanity.  When  firmly  established  in  his  seat 
however  he  had  changed  his  tone.  Before  subscribing 
the  edict,  he  submitted  it  to  the  Western  theologian 
Fulgentius  Ferrandus,  whose  decision  was  adverse, — 
mainly  upon  the  grounds  already  taken  by  others,  (i) 
that  it  was  unwise  to  unsettle  the  action  of  general 
councils,  and  (2)  that  deceased  brethren  were  beyond 
the  reach  of  human  judgment.  Vigilius,  vacillating 


The  Fifth  General  Council.          277 

between  what  he  felt  to  be  the  sentiment  of  the 
Western  Church,  his  past  compromises  with  the 
Monophysites,  and  the  pressure  of  the  emperor,  was 
in  547  summoned  by  the  latter  to  Constantinople 
where  he  was  detained  seven  years  by  the  emperor's 
persistent  determination  to  conciliate  the  church  in 
despite  of  itself.  More  than  once  Vigilius  consented 
to  the  condemnation  of  the  Three  Chapters  and  then 
bending  before  the  storm  of  opposition  from  the  West, 
that  proceeded  in  one  instance  even  to  the  point 
of  his  excommunication  by  the  church  of  North 
Africa,  retracted  his  condemnation.  In  55 1  he  begged 
the  emperor  to  convene  a  general  council,  pending 
which  he  might  withhold  his  final  decision.  The 
emperor  consented  upon  the  condition  that  he  should 
bind  himself  by  an  oath  not  to  recede  from  the  con- 
demnation of  the  Three  Chapters.  In  553  the  Fifth 
General  Council,  the  Second  of  Constantinople,  met 
and  finally  with  much  delay  and  trouble  extorted  a 
judgment  from  Vigilius.  He  had  now  Western  theo- 
logians by  his  side  and  for  once  decided  firmly  and 
adversely.  He  would  not  (i)  condemn  in  the  person 
of  Theodore  a  writer  who  had  died  in  the  communion 
of  the  church,  nor  (2)  pronounce  heretical  the  works 
of  Theodoret  and  Ibas  which  had  received  the  sanc- 
tion of  Chalcedon.  Thereupon  the  emperor  and  the 
council  broke  off  all  communion  with  Vigilius  and 
proceeded  to  act  without  him.  The  edict  of  the  Three 
Chapters  was  adopted  as  it  stood ;  Theodore  was 
anathematized  in  his  person  and  works  and  the  par- 
ticular writings  of  the  others  were  condemned.  Then 
the  opposition  of  Vigilius  broke  down;  he  accepted 


278  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

the  authority  and  subscribed  the  decisions  of  the 
council.  There  was  great  dissatisfaction  in  the  West, 
resulting  in  a  schism  of  many  bishops  for  many  years. 
But  there  was  nothing  for  Vigilius's  successors  to  do 
but  to  accept  and  sustain  his  action.  And  so  in  the 
West  as  in  the  East  the  council  was  recognized  as  the 
Fifth  Ecumenical. 

But  the  great  body  of  the  more  zealous  and  sincere 
Monophysites  was  not  conciliated.  Under  the  suc- 
cessors of  Justinian,  Justin  II.  and  Tiberius,  repressive 
measures  were  once  more  resorted  to,  and  of  course 
once  more  failed.  The  Monophysite  communities 
retain  ecclesiastical  organizations  to  this  day  in  Syria, 
Armenia,  Egypt  and  Abyssinia. 

In  tracing,  as  we  shall  now  endeavor  to  do,  the 
inner,  intellectual  and  spiritual  movement  of  Mono- 
physitism  between  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  General 
Councils,  we  may  limit  ourselves  to  just  those  ele- 
ments that  are  of  permanent  and  present  interest  and 
value,  passing  over  many  details  of  tentative  and 
temporary  thought  that  distracted  and  divided  the 
party  within  itself. 

The  general  and  characteristic  principle  of  Mo- 
nophysitism,  that  of  the  f"d  or  \ibvi]  <pvmg,  the  one  or 
single  nature  of  the  incarnate  Lord,  is  this  :  that  while 
he  combined  two  natures  in  himself  he  so  combined 
them  that  in  him  they  were  not  merely  morally  or 
gnomically  but  physically  or  naturally  one.  It  was 
not  a  unity  of  two,  either  persons  or  natures,  acting 
as  one,  but  of  one,  both  person  and  nature,  incapable 
of  acting  as  two.  He  was  not  only  one  only  subject 
of  action  but  exerted  one  only  kind  or  mode  of  ac- 


Principle  of  Monophysitism.  2  79 

tivity  (evepyeia).  He  did  not  act  as  both  God  and  man 
or,  as  Leo  represented  it,  now  as  God  and  now  as 
man,  but  always  as  the  one  person  that  he  was.  This 
unity  of  action  or  operation,  as  will  be  readily  felt, 
might  be  conceived  in  several  different  ways,  but  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  Monophysite  conception  was  that 
as  our  Lord's  person  was  only  divine  so  his  whole 
being  and  activity  even  in  the  flesh  was  determined 
only  after  the  divine  mode.  It  was  as  God  that  he 
not  merely  assumed  humanity,  taught  the  truth, 
worked  miracles  and  destroyed  sin  and  death,  but 
also  was  humanly  born,  hungered,  suffered  and  died. 
What  then  and  where  was  the  human  nature  that 
he  assumed  ?  It  was  by  the  physical  act  and  fact  of 
union  with  the  divine  so  deified  as  to  lose  its  own 
proper  kvepyeia,  and  to  become  a  mere  veil,  garment 
or  mode  of  visibility  of  the  activity  of  the  divine.  Or 
rather,  more  than  a  mere  means  of  visibility,  the  hu- 
manity of  our  Lord  is  that  in  which  and  by  means  of 
which  the  deity  renders  itself  capable  of  a  kind  of 
activity  of  which  it  is  incapable  in  itself ;  the  capacity 
that  is  to  suffer  with  and  for  us.  But  the  whole 
significance  of  the  human  nature  of  our  Lord  is  that 
it  is  that  in  which  God  may  act,  and  may  be  capable 
of  acting,  in  a  certain  way.  There  is  no  room  for  any 
human  action,  nor  indeed  any  need  or  demand  for 
any.  The  whole  activity  of  the  incarnation  is  a  purely 
divine  and  not  a  human  activity.  According  to  the 
extremest  view,  our  Lord's  very  body  was  so  deified 
by  natural  conjunction  with  deity  that  it  was  no  longer 
subject  to  its  natural  functions  and  laws.  If  it 
hungered,  was  weary,  suffered  or  died,  it  was  not 


280  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

because  it  need  have  done  so  or  indeed  did  so  but 
only  because  our  divine  Lord  willed  to  experience 
and  endure  these  things  in  it.  If  he  performed  any 
even  the  most  natural  and  automatic  act  in  the  body 
it  was  not  an  involuntary  action  of  his  body  but  a 
voluntary  act  of  himself,  because  we  cannot  conceive 
of  God  as  being  for  a  moment  really  subject  to  the 
laws  or  conditions  of  matter.  There  was  every  gra- 
dation of  view  from  this  up  to  a  merely  imperceptible 
difference  from  the  position  of  the  church;  indeed 
there  were  Monophysites  who  held  a  truer  humanity 
of  the  Lord  than  the  current  doctrine  of  catholics. 
The  lower  and  higher  views  came  thus  to  divide,  as 
they  still  divide,  the  Monophysites  into  the  sects  of 
the  Julianists  and  the  Severians.  But  in  the  highest 
view  of  Severus  himself,  who  approached  most  nearly 
to  the  church  and  was  the  greatest  of  the  Monophy- 
sites, while  there  was  a  disposition  and  an  effort  to 
recognize  the  continuance  in  the  incarnation  of  a  real 
humanity,  it  was  only  a  humanity  in  its  lowest  and 
least  distinctively  human  attributes  and  activities. 
According  to  him  the  body  of  Christ  was  really  a 
human  body,  but  was  the  mind,  were  the  affections, 
was  the  will,  were  the  moral  and  spiritual  functions 
and  dispositions,  actions  and  character  of  our  Lord 
human  also?  But  it  is  all  these  things  that  constitute 
a  real  manhood,  a  really  human  nature,  activity  and 
life.  If  our  Lord  was  indeed  a  man  in  all  respects 
like  unto  us,  then  how  can  we  except  any  of  these 
things  in  which  our  manhood  consists?  But  Severus 
excepts  them  every  one  and  leaves  after  the  union 
not  one  single  attribute  or  activity  distinctive  of  an 


The  Scientific  Difficulty.  281 

actual  humanity.  He  is  wholly  unwilling  to  concede 
to  the  human  soul  that  reality  which  he  concedes  to 
the  human  body.  Our  Lord,  e.g.,  has  but  one  con- 
sciousness, one  knowledge,  and  that  the  divine.  From 
the  moment  of  the  union  of  the  natures,  i.e.  from  the 
moment  of  the  conception  in  the  womb,  the  con- 
sciousness of  Jesus  was  that  of  the  divine  Logos ;  his 
knowledge  was  omniscience.  The  growth  in  wisdom 
was  only  apparent;  there  was  never  any  limitation 
and  therefore  could  be  no  increase  or  progress.  He 
only  gradually  revealed  or  exhibited  outwardly  that 
which  inwardly  was  complete  and  perfect  in  him 
from  the  first.  So  our  Lord  had  only  one,  and  that 
the  infinitely  and  eternally  perfect  divine  will.  He 
was  no  more  capable  of  moral  than  of  mental  progress 
and  growth.  It  could  not  have  been  in  any  actual 
sense,  for  himself,  that  he  learned  obedience  or  was 
made  perfect  by  the  things  he  suffered.  The  cry, 
"Not  as  I  will  but  as  thou  wilt!"  represents  no  real 
conflict  or  struggle  of  wills.  It  was  not  uttered  out 
of  any  human  exigency  or  need  of  his  own.  His 
natural  utterances  of  ignorance  or  of  weakness  are 
only  to  be  heard  by  us ;  he  utters  them  not  for  him- 
self but  for  us,  for  our  example  and  instruction. 

The  difficulty  within  Monophysitism  itself  and  the 
impossibility  at  the  time  of  any  answer  to  it  from 
the  church  were  due  to  two  main  causes,  one  scien- 
tific, the  other  religious.  The  scientific  difficulty 
was  that  neither  party,  and  the  church  less  than  the 
Monophysites,  knew  exactly  what  it  meant  by  the 
terms  "  nature  "  and  "  person,"  upon  which  the  whole 
controversy  hinged.  The  Monophysites  were  con- 


282  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

vinced  that  to  attribute  to  our  Lord  a  complete  hu- 
man nature,  a  humanity  in  which  nothing  is  lacking 
that  is  human,  would  necessarily  be  to  make  him  a 
human  as  well  as  divine  person,  and  this  seemed  to 
them  equivalent  to  making  him  two  persons.  They 
saw  indeed  that  the  church  itself  whatever  it  might 
avow  in  theory  did  not  hold  in  practice  the  opposite 
truths  which  it  had  imposed  upon  the  faith  of  the 
world  by  the  authority  of  Chalcedon.  Men  either 
did  not  hold  the  one  personality  or  else  they  did  not 
hold  the  totality  of  both  natures.  Even  Leo  neither 
successfully  conceived  our  Lord  as  one  person  nor 
wholly  conceded  to  him  the  two  natures.  What  was 
needed  to  refute  Monophysitism  was  the  fuller  truth, 
which  was  then  still  in  the  future,  not  that  our  Lord 
was  God  and  man  in  the  sense  that  he  was  sometimes 
and  in  some  things  God  and  at  other  times  and  in 
other  things  man,  but  that  his  entire  incarnate  activ- 
ity was  at  once  that  of  a  divine  and  that  of  a  human 
person,  and  yet  not  that  of  two  but  of  only  one  person 
both  divine  and  human.  What  was  still  lacking  to 
render  this  conception  practically  and  scientifically  as 
well  as  theoretically  and  mystically  possible  we  shall 
endeavor  to  show  later. 

The  religious  difficulty  was  in  effect  an  even  greater 
one,  since  in  relation  to  it  the  church  was  scarcely  less 
Monophysite  than  the  Monophysites.  The  principle 
of  the  one  incarnate  nature  is,  as  we  have  seen,  that 
the  whole  change  in  the  humanity  of  our  Lord 
through  the  incarnation  is  the  immediate,  instantane- 
ous, physical  or  natural  and  necessary  result  of  its 
assumption  by  deity.  The  man  Jesus  is  holy  not 


The  Religioiis  Difficulty.  283 

but  <j)voet,  by  fact  and  necessity  of  nature,  i.e. 
of  his  divine  nature,  and  not  through  any  choice, 
freedom  or  will  of  his  human  nature.  There  is  no 
room  for  and  there  is  no  conception  of  a  spiritual  and 
moral  as  distinguished  from  a  physical  and  necessary 
incarnation.  The  humanity  in  no  sense  incarnates 
divinity ;  it  is  wholly  the  divinity  which  incarnates 
itself  in  the  humanity.  There  is  no  real  significance 
in  the  human  holiness,  obedience  and  self-sacrifice  of 
our  Lord;  the  whole  meaning  and  value  of  it  is  that 
God  thus  suffers  in  us  and  for  us.  The  truth  that 
God  is  incarnate  in  a  humanity  which  itself  in  him 
dies  to  sin  and  lives  to  God,  which  is  the  truth  of  the 
New  Testament,  is  not  yet  that  of  the  church.  There 
is  a  one-sided  mystical  piety  which  is  willing  that 
God  shall  be  everything  in  us  and  is  not  willing  that 
we  shall,  by  consequence,  be  everything  in  God, 
whereas  the  whole  truth  of  Jesus  Christ  is  that  in 
him  not  only  God  became  human  but  man  also 
became  divine. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE   MONOTHELITES   AND   THE   THIRD   COUNCIL 
OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

ONOPHYSITISM  having  under  its  suc- 
cessive defeats  and  persecutions  with- 
drawn to  the  distant  confines  of  the  em- 
pire, the  church  was  left  for  a  season  at 
peace.  But  the  elements  of  the'  unsolved 
problem  were  still  in  a  state  of  ferment,  and  the  con- 
troversy soon  broke  out  anew  under  the  altered  form 
of  Monothelitism.  The  successive  issues  as  they  were 
raised  and  discussed  may  be  briefly  stated  as  follows : 
By  the  suppression  or  expulsion  of  the  revolt 
against  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  the  question  of  the 
single  or  double  nature  was,  in  terms  at  least,  settled 
in  favor  of  the  latter.  That  being  conceded,  shall 
we  say  that  there  were  in  our  Lord  not  only  two 
complete  natures  but  two  complete  Kv£pyeiai,  or  de- 
veloped activities,  of  the  natures?  No,  it  was  an- 
swered; for  though  there  are  two  natures  there  is 
only  one  person  who  acts  in  both ;  and  consequently 
there  can  be  but  one  operation  or  activity.  It  is  as 
much  the  divine  Logos  incarnate  who  performs  all  the 
acts  that  we  call  human  as  who  performs  those  that 

284 


One    Will  or   Two?  285 

are  divine.  It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  this  was 
giving  back  to  the  Monophysites  all  that  had  been 
taken  away  from  them.  They  had  never  meant  to 
deny  to  our  Lord  a  potential  but  only  an  actual 
human  nature ;  such  a  humanity  as  this,  devoid  of  its 
IdiKr)  EvipjEia,  its  proper  functions  and  activities,  they 
could  never  have  hesitated  to  concede  to  him.  It 
will  not  surprise  us  to  learn  that  by  this  seemingly 
slight  concession  to  them  on  the  part  of  the  church 
very  many  Monophysites,  even  in  Egypt  their  strong- 
hold, were  won  over  and  reconciled.  But  there  were 
also  those  who  protested  at  once  and  bitterly  that  to 
concede  that  was  to  concede  everything;  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  single  functioning  or  activity  of  the 
natures  was  all  that  Monophysitism  claimed  in  the 
single  nature.  And  the  church  awoke  in  time  to  the 
danger  and  repudiated  the  concession. 

The  next  issue  to  be  raised  was  this  :  Conceding  both 
the  double  nature  and  the  double  activity  in  the  incar- 
nation, how  then  are  we  to  assume  or  assure  the  unity 
of  the  personal  life  of  our  Lord?  The  answer  was 
undertaken  to  be  given  in  Monothelitism.  In  the  single 
personality  is  involved  the  necessity  of  a  single  will. 
Our  Lord  could  not  have  had  two  wills  for  then  he 
would  have  been  two  persons.  He  had  two  natures 
and  two  corresponding  modes  of  action  but  it  was 
one  and  the  same  will  that  acted  through  both  and 
consequently  though  different  in  outward  form  his 
acts  are  identical  in  source  and  internal  character. 
To  this  there  were  many  objections  and  replies,  (i) 
There  can  no  more  be  a  human  activity  without  a 
human  will  than  a  human  nature  without  a  human 


286  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

activity.  The  will  is  the  essence  of  the  eve'pyem  as  the 
latter  is  but  the  actuality  and  activity  of  the  nature ; 
if  one  is  human  all  three  must  be.  (2)  This  involved 
the  psychological  question  whether  the  will  is  a  part 
of  the  person  or  a  part  of  the  nature,  the  church 
practically  deciding  in  favor  of  the  latter.  (3)  The 
Lord  himself  consistently  represents  his  own  will  as 
human,  "  I  seek  not  my  own  will,  but  his  that  sent 
me,"  "Not  as  I  will  but  as  thou  wilt;"  and  the 
Monothelites  are  forced  to  be  always  explaining  away 
his  words  in  an  unnatural  sense. 

This  point  secured,  yet  another  issue  remained  to 
b*  met.  What  then  was  there  to  secure  the  accord 
and  unity  of  the  two  wills,  and  was  there  not  a  pos- 
sibility of  the  human  will  falling  away  from  the  divine  ? 
Unfortunately,  as  we  shall  see,  the  church  which  in 
the  next  general  council  with  a  sure  instinct  settled 
as  far  as  the  third  point  was  unprepared  as  yet  to 
meet  the  fourth.  The  double  natures,  the  double 
functions  and  the  double  wills  were  now  affirmed,  but 
with  regard  to  the  problem  of  our  Lord's  human 
freedom  the  matter  was  left  in  a  suspense  that  was 
to  operate  for  a  very  long  time  against  not  only  any 
further  progress  of  the  truth  but  even  the  securing  and 
applying  what  had  been  attained.  The  ablest  of  the 
theologians  who  had  gone  so  far  and  done  so  much 
to  vindicate  the  now  almost  complete  construction  of 
our  Lord's  manhood  faltered  at  the  last  step.  For 
the  nature  they  demanded  a  true  actuality  or  activity 
and  for  the  activity  a  true  human  will,  but  to  the 
will  they  hesitated  and  declined  to  attribute  a  real 
freedom.  But  is  not  freedom  as  essential  to  will  as 


Maximus  Confessor.  287 

will  to  action  or  action  to  the  nature  of  which  it  is 
the  proper  function? 

The  ablest  of  the  anti-Monothelite  theologians  of 
the  church  was  Maximus,  who  did  much  to  reestablish 
and  preserve  the  truth  of  a  not  merely  corporeal  but 
intellectual,  moral  and  spiritual  humanity  in  our  Lord. 
He  rises  very  far  above  the  idea  that  the  human  na- 
ture was  only  something  to  be  acted  in  and  through 
by  an  invisible  divine  agent,  the  Logos.  Has  the 
Logos,  he  asks,  annihilated  the  will  and  activity  of 
the  human  soul  in  which  he  is  incarnate?  What  are 
our  Lord's  faith  and  love  and  other  virtues  if  they 
are  not  realized  by  the  free  will  and  independent 
activity  of  his  human  soul?  If  he  does  not  possess 
all  the  attributes  that  constitute  our  nature,  especially 
the  proper  will  and  activity  of  the  soul,  then  his 
humanity  is  on  a  level  with  the  irrational  creatures. 
Especially  what  shall  we  say  of  the  holy  and  right- 
eous obedience  of  our  Lord  unto  death?  How  could 
he  say,  "  I  am  come  not  to  do  my  own  will,  but  that 
I  may  accomplish  the  work  and  keep  his  commands  "  ? 
Was  it  all  the  obedience  of  the  Logos  to  God  or  the 
obedience  of  his  humanity  ?  The  former  view  makes 
the  divine  nature  of  our  Lord  a  subject  and  a  servant, 
after  the  manner  of  Arius.  We  must  assume  the 
existence  of  a  human  will  distinct  from  that  of  the 
Logos  (Maximus,  as  quoted  by  Dorner). 

Thus  Maximus  not  only  asserts  for  our  Lord  a  true 
human  will,  but  secures  to  it  a  relative  independence 
from  the  overpowering  and  effacing  activity  of  the 
Logos  in  and  through  it.  But  the  freedom  which  he 
thus  preserves  in  one  connection  he  surrenders  in 


288  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

another.  In  order  to  insure  the  certainty  of  his  hu- 
man obedience,  he  attributes  to  our  Lord  not  that 
truly  human  holiness  which  is  the  result  of  freedom 
and  choice  and  of  an  actual  human  development  and 
growth,  but  a  holiness  necessary  and  complete  from 
the  first  and  incapable  of  progress  or  change.  It  is 
a  holiness  <j>vaei,  though  not  by  his  divine  but  by  his 
human  nature.  It  is  the  effect  of  his  virgin  birth  by 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  that  his  humanity  is 
arp£7rrof,  incapable  of  moral  change.  Thus  his  hu- 
manity is  not  only  not  ours  which  is  fallen  but  it  is 
not  that  of  Adam  which  was  capable  of  falling ;  it  is 
a  third  kind  which  was  neither.  And  a  holiness  by 
necessity  of  nature  and  not  by  act  of  will  is  no  more 
a  human  holiness  because  the  nature  is  a  so-called 
human  one  that  cannot  sin  than  if  it  were  the  divine 
nature. 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  seemed  to  be  two  possible 
ways  to  provide  for  the  unchangeableness  of  our 
Lord's  human  holiness  and  obedience.  One  was 
the  Monophysitic  one  of  so  subordinating  and  sub- 
jecting the  human  to  the  divine  as  to  leave  it  no 
freedom  or  activity  of  its  own.  The  other  was  to 
ascribe  to  the  human  an  independence  from  the  divine 
but  to  ascribe  to  it  in  its  own  nature,  by  some  fore- 
gone action  upon  it  usually  associated  with  the 
miraculous  birth,  an  impossibility  of  sinning.  Dorner 
has  clearly  proved  that  the  last  general  council,  at 
Constantinople,  under  the  opposite  influences  operat- 
ing upon  it  combined  these  two  contradictory  safe- 
guards in  a  manner  so  vacillating  and  inconsistent  as 
to  constitute  a  serious  charge  against  its  ecumenicity. 


Sequence  of  Events.  289 

But  a  council  is  catholic  so  far  as  it  is  so  and  no 
further,  and  the  Sixth  General  Council  did  add  ma- 
terial elements  to  the  construction  of  the  doctrine  of 
our  Lord's  person.  Its  contribution  was  the  assertion 
of  the  proper  humanity  not  only  of  the  incarnate 
nature  of  our  Lord,  as  decided  at  Chalcedon,  but  as 
essential  constituents  of  it  of  his  activity  and  will  i 
within  the  nature.  So  far  it  was  catholic,  and  not 
as  regards  the  still  unsolved  question  of  the  freedom 
of  the  human  will. 

We  must  now  briefly  sketch  the  progress  of  events 
from  the  origin  of  the  Monothelite  agitation  to  its 
close  in  what  is  known  as  the  Sixth  and  last  Ecu- 
menical Council.  The  philosophical  connection  of  the 
movement  with  the  physical  and  mystical  speculations 
of  the  author  known  as  the  Pseudo-Dionysius  Areo- 
pagitica  we  need  only  allude  to.  The  system  of 
Dionysius,  which  at  this  time  and  afterward  exerted 
a  great  influence  upon  the  theology  of  the  church, 
was  a  pantheistic,  Neoplatonic  appropriation  and 
application  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  incarnation 
to  the  explanation  of  the  immanent  relation  of  God 
to  nature  and  to  man.  Many  of  its  ideas  and  much 
of  its  phraseology,  partly  derived  from  Christianity, 
easily  returned  to  their  source  and  were  incorporated 
into  later  Christian  speculations,  mainly  of  a  Monoph- 
ysitic  tendency.  Thus  was  derived  the  character- 
istic phrase  of  this  stage  of  the  Monothelite  movement, 
as  descriptive  of  our  Lord's  incarnate  activity,  \aa 
OeavdpiKTj  ivepyeia,  "  one  theandric  or  divine-human 
activity."  The  beginning  of  the  discussion,  as  we 
have  said,  was  as  follows :  Conceding  the  two  natures 


290  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

in  our  Lord,  are  we  to  concede  also  two  series  of 
activities  or  only  a  single  either  divine  or  divine- 
human  activity?  Here  we  must  discriminate  two 
different  kinds  of  unity,  an  essential  and  an  actual  or 
practical  unity.  Of  course  every  one  must  and  even 
the  Nestorians  did  most  of  all  affirm  the  practical 
unity  of  our  Lord's  will  and  activity.  However  truly 
the  wills  and  activities  in  him  were  two  in  nature  they 
were  certainly  one  in  operation;  they  were  so  in  ac- 
cord and  harmony  in  their  every  movement  that  while 
physically  and  potentially  two  they  were  actually  one. 
This  gnomic  unity,  as  it  was  called,  is  relative ;  it  is 
a  unity  in  difference,  an  accord  or  harmony  or  con- 
currence of  two  or  more.  Now  the  real  danger 
perhaps  and  certainly  constant  fear  of  such  a  gnomic 
unity  was  that  it  would  end,  even  though  it  did  not 
begin,  in  a  Nestorian  duality  of  persons  in  our  Lord. 
The  church  itself  largely  shared  the  Monophysitic 
disposition  to  ascribe  not  a  gnomic  or  moral  but  an 
essential  or  necessary  unity  if  not  to  our  Lord's  na- 
ture yet  to  his  activity  in  the  natures.  They  said, 
it  is  not  the  nature  that  acts  but  the  person  in  the 
nature.  Consequently  if  our  Lord  is  one  person 
though  in  two  natures  his  activity  is  essentially  one, 
although  in  two  modes  or  through  two  series  of 
external  conditions. 

There  were  political  as  well  as  religious  reasons 
why  such  a  compromise  with  Monophysitism  should 
commend  itself  just  at  this  time.  In  the  face  of  the 
Mohammedan  invasions  the  Emperor  Heraclius  was 
anxious  to  unite  the  empire  and  especially  to  bring 
about  peace  among  the  Christians  of  Egypt.  The 


Sergius  of  Constantinople.  291 

patriarch  Cyrus  of  Alexandria  was  his  personal  friend 
and  agent,  appointed  there  with  this  especial  end  in 
view.  And  this  doctrinal  concession  had  enabled 
Cyrus  to  reconcile  the  Monophysites  by  thousands. 
While  the  work  of  conciliation  was  thus  going  on  in 
Egypt  it  suddenly  encountered  a  violent  opposition 
in  the  person  of  a  monk  Sophronius,  who  soon  after 
became  patriarch  of  Jerusalem.  This  interruption 
led  to  a  reference  by  Cyrus  of  the  question  of  the 
fiia  evspyeia,  to  which  Sophronius  had  taken  exception, 
to  the  patriarch  Sergius  of  Constantinople.  Sergius 
after  a  careful  examination  of  the  matter  expressed 
himself  as  of  one  mind  with  Cyrus  but  counselled 
him,  for  the  sake  not  only  of  the  truth  but  of  the 
work  of  peace  he  was  accomplishing,  to  avoid  the  use 
of  both  phrases,  the  /u<z  evspyeia  and  the  dvb  evepyetai. 
The  first,  he  said,  was  new  and  might  by  some  be 
identified  with  Monophysitism  ;  the  second  was  clearly 
false,  since  it  would  lead  to  two  wills,  sometimes  op- 
posed, which  was  impossible  in  one  person ;  it  would 
involve  therefore  a  Nestorian  separation  of  the  hu- 
manity from  the  deity.  "  The  doctrine  of  the  God- 
taught  fathers  is  that  the  humanity  of  the  Lord  never 
acts  by  itself  or  in  opposition  to  the  suggestions  of 
the  Logos  hypostatically  united  with  it,  but  merely 
when,  as  and  in  the  measure  in  which  God  the 
Logos  willed  it.  As  our  body  is  governed  by  the 
soul,  so  was  the  entire  human  life  system  of  Christ 
always  and  in  all  things  impelled  by  God."  Much 
depends  of  course  in  language  like  this  upon 
whether  it  is  meant  that  the  deity  acts  spiritually  and 
morally  upon  the  humanity  and  influences  it  through 


292  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

the  human  will  and  free  activity,  or  whether  the 
meaning  is  that  it  acts  upon  it  physically  and  neces- 
sarily; in  the  latter  case  the  activity  is  essentially 
and  not  morally  one,  which  denies  to  our  Lord  any 
possibility  of  a  human  holiness  or  obedience  and 
makes  his  entire  spiritual  and  moral  activity  that  of 
God  alone  and  not  of  man  at  all. 

Sergius  had  at  first  prevailed  upon  both  Cyrus  and 
Sophronius  to  forbear  discussion  and  dispute  in  view 
of  the  interests  at  stake.  But  subsequently  foresee- 
ing that  Sophronius,  as  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  would 
not  continue  to  maintain  silence,  he  submitted  the 
whole  matter  in  a  full  account  of  it  to  Honorius, 
bishop  of  Rome.  Honorius  gave  it  the  most  thorough 
consideration  and  in  a  very  careful  and  clear  analysis 
of  the  point  at  issue  carried,  for  the  first  time,  the 
whole  question  back  from  that  of  two  natures  or  two 
operations  to  that  of  two  wills  in  our  Lord.  The 
unity  of  the  two  natures,  he  maintained,  was  to  be 
secured  by  the  principle  not  of  a  una  operatio  but  of 
a  unus  operator.  It  lay  neither  in  the  natures  nor  in 
the  functions  or  activities  of  the  natures,  but  in  the 
person.  OurJj.oj^rbejng.^pjT^p^r^oji.jjpssessecl  jpne 
will^  which  acted  \r\  fwn  mpfjes  of  opijqytinn  Thus 
Honorjus,  bishop  of  Rome,  was  the  first  to  give  sys- 
tematic statement  to  the  doctrine  of  the  one  will  in 
our  Lord,  and  was  the  true  originator  of  Monothe- 
litism. 

Meanwhile  the  Emperor  Heraclius  was  impatient 
for  a  basis  upon  which  to  settle  the  disturbance  cre- 
ated by  Sophronius  and  to  resume  the  work  of  con- 
ciliation. In  A.D.  638  he  issued  his  "ExOeaig  moreug, 


Honorius  Originator  of  Monothelitism.    293 

or  exposition  of  the  faith,  taking  substantially  the 
position  of  Honorius,  forbidding  any  further  discussion 
of  the  single  or  double  activity  and  enforcing  the 
doctrine  of  the  one  will.  But  quite  apart  from  the 
inherent  difficulties  in  this  new  solution  of  the  problem 
of  our  Lord's  unity  in  duality,  what  was  much  more 
practically  to  the  point  was  the  fact  that  this  doctrine 
of  Honorius's  was  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  point 
of  view  of  Leo  and  the  Epistle  to  Flavian,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  formula  of  Chalcedon.  The  conse- 
quence was  that  after  Honorius's  death  in  638  his 
successors  at  once  reversed  the  attitude  of  the  Roman 
see  and  entered  upon  a  war  to  the  death  with  Mo- 
nothelitism. The  new  emperor  Constans  adjusted 
himself  to  the  change  in  the  situation  to  the  extent 
of  substituting  for  the  *EK.6em$  of  his  predecessor  his 
own  Tvnog  rr\q  Tuarewf,  in  which  all  discussion  was  for- 
bidden not  only  of  the  one  or  two  operations  but  of 
the  one  or  two  wills.  But  this  was  equally  inade- 
quate, and  the  Lateran  Council  of  649,  under  Pope 
Martin  I.,  condemned  the  Tv-xog  for  undertaking  to 
suppress  the  truth  of  the  two  wills.  In  this  stage  of 
the  controversy  the  most  prominent  and  ablest  of  the 
theologians  of  the  church  was  Maximus,  of  whom  we 
have  already  spoken.  The  position  of  Maximus  was 
substantially  in  the  line  of  Leo  and  his  Tome.  He 
vindicated  the  position  of  the  will  as  a  constituent 
element  in  the  idea  of  a  rational  being  and  therefore 
in  the  nature  and  operation  of  our  Lord's  humanity 
if  it  is  real.  "  He  was  even  as  a  man  essentially 
a  voluntary  being.  The  saying  of  the  fathers  that 
Christ  moulded  our  will  does  not  mean  that  the  Logos 


294  ^*  Ecumenical  Councils. 

determined  the  will  of  Christ ;  but  that  he  as  a  man 
subjected  humanity  in  himself  and  through  himself  to 
God  the  Father,  thus  setting  us  an  example  of  a 
perfect  kind  that  we  also  may  voluntarily  submit 
ourselves  "  (Dorner).  Here  almost  for  the  first  time 
in  this  Christological  discussion  we  have  something 
like  an  adequate  recognition  of  the  full  significance 
of  our  Lord's  human  activity  in  the  work  of  our  re- 
demption and  completion.  The  whole  truth  of  Christ 
is  twofold  and  requires  the  totality  of  both  sides,  as 
Leo  said  better  than  he  either  knew  or  meant  in  the 
totus  in  suis,  totus  in  nostris.  Not  only  does  it  not 
consist  solely  in  something  which  God  became  or  did 
as  God  in  the  nature  of  man,  something  which  deity 
suffered  or  accomplished  by  suffering,  but  even  the 
divine  part  in  the  incarnation  is  most  properly  mani- 
fested in  what  man  does  and  becomes.  The  truth  as 
it  is  in  Jesus  is  humanity's  death  to  sin  and  life  to 
God.  It  is  an  act  at  once  of  God  in  humanity  and 
equally  of  humanity  in  God.  The  human  Jesus  by 
the  way  of  the  cross  brings  man  into  at-one-ment 
with  God  and  redemption  from  sin  and  death.  As 
Maximus  expresses  it,  he  as  a  man  subjected  humanity 
in_ himself  and  through  himself  to  God  .the  Father. 
A  human  activity  that  is  thus  the  redemption  and 
completion  of  humanity  must  have  been  in  itself 
not  only  the  activity  of  a  very  real  and  actual  hu- 
manity but  a  very  human  activity  of  it.  It  must 
have  been  quite  as  really  an  activity  of  manhood  as 
it  was  of  Godhead. 

This  Maximus  saw  and  attempted  to  secure ;  if  he 
still  fell  short  in  one  or  more  respects  it  was  only 


Excuse  for  the  Monothelitic  Revolt.    295 

because  the  spiritual  science  of  his  day  was  still  in- 
complete. A  brief  reference  to  the  defects  of  his 
thought  will  prepare  us  to  see  wherein  it  needed  to 
be  completed. 

In  the  first  place  the  real  cause  and  we  may  almost 
say  justification  of  the  great  Monothelitic  revolt  from 
the  church  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  predominant  mind 
of  the  latter  as  represented  by  Leo  and  now  even  by 
Maximus  did  not  offer  to  it  any  real  unity  of  the 
natures  in  Christ.  One  personal  subject  lived  and 
acted  in  both,  and  they  were  thus  united  in  him  but 
they  were  not  united  in  themselves.  In  him  they 
remained  distinct  and  apart  and  he  acted  now  in  one 
of  them  and  now  in  the  other.  The  Monothelites 
could  not  see  any  difference  of  consequence  or  value 
between  this  and  the  dual  personality  of  Nestorianism. 
The  two  natures,  they  said  with  much  truth,  are  never 
truly  combined  in  your  one  Christ  but  remain  forever 
outside  and  alongside  of  each  other.  Their  only  unity 
is  that  the  personal  subject  of  both  is  the  divine 
Logos,  who  in  the  divine  nature  acts  in  accordance 
with  what  is  proper  to  it  and  in  the  human  nature 
acts  in  and  through  what  is  distinctive  and  constitutive 
of  it,  e.g.  through  a  human  will  and  activity.  This 
is  no  real  unity  but  only  a  juxtaposition  and  concord 
of  two  forever  separate  and  different  things.  If  such 
an  activity  in  two  distinct  natures  were  really  carried 
out  through  the  totality  of  the  functions  of  both  it 
would  necessarily  result  in  two  personalities  as  well 
as  personal  activities.  It  only  does  not,  if  indeed  it 
does  not,  because  the  church  does  not  really  allow  to 
our  Lord,  what  it  professes  to  do,  a  complete  and 


296  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

actual  human  will,  activity,  or  nature.  This  was  a 
very  real  objection,  the  explanation  of  which  lay  in 
the  fact  that  even  Maximus  had  notyetoutgrQwn^  the 
old  and  well-nign"universal  conception  tbatjhe  divine 
and  human  natures. .are^two  ^essejjjfcj.ajly  rjjfferent  and 
mutually  exclusive  things,  which  maybe  brought  into 
juxtaposition  and  accord  with  each  other  but  into  no 
closer  relation  of  unity.  ThejAurchjieeded  to  feel 
moredeeply  and  truly  that  it  is  the  very  nature  of 
the  divine  Logosof  humanity  to  become  human  as 
it  is  also  the  nature  of_humanity  to  become^dbdjie. 
So  little  is  either  changed  from  itself  or  into  the 
other  by  becoming  it,  as  the  church  feared,  that  it 
only  truly  becomes  itself  in  becoming  the  other. 
God  as  Logos  of  man  only  fulfils  himseli-as^and^n 
man,  and  man  as  g<^p  apd  image  of  God  only  realizes 
and  becomes  himself  in  God.  Both  of  tlie.se  ends  are 
revealed  as  accomplished  in  Jesus  Christ. 

In  the  second  place,  we  have  already  seen  how 
Maximus,  in  his  praiseworthy  effort  to  secure  the 
humanity  of  our  Lord  from  a  mere  absorption  and 
loss  of  itself  or  of  all  that  is  prope  ly  distinctive  of 
itself  in  the  divinity,  attempts  to  preserve  the  immu- 
tability of  his  holy  obedience  by  the  alternative  de- 
vice of  ascribing  to  his  very  humanity,  through  the 
action  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  miraculous  birth,  a 
character  that  not  only  separates  it  from  ours  which 
is  fallen  but  from  Adam's  which  was  capable  of  fall- 
ing. The  difficulty  is  that  that  at  once  renders  our 
Lord's  holy  obedience  in  our  nature  unlike  that  of 
any  really  human  being  whether  unfallen  or  fallen. 
A  holiness  <pvoei,  by  necessity  of  nature  either  human 


The  Sixth  General  Council.         297 

or^divine,jsjiot_ajiumaiiholm  The  true  opera- 

tion of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  our  Lord  was  not  to  make 
the  nature  physically  and  necessarily  holy  in  him  but 
to  make  him  as  a  man  (as  Maximus  himself  had  said) 
spiritually  and  morally  holy  in  the_nature. 

The  dyothelite  reaction  in  Rome  after  HonoriusJhad 
seriously  interfered  with  if  it  had  not  defeated  the 
emperor's  scheme  of  conciliation,  as  it  led  at  last  to 
another  schism  between  Rome  and  Constantinople. 
The  emperor  resorted  to  persecution  and  at  intervals 
of  six  or  seven  years,  Martin  I.,  Maximus  and  other 
leaders  of  the  catholic  opponents  of  Monothelitism 
died  as  martyrs  in  exile  and  under  the  most  inhuman 
treatment.  In  678  Constantine  Pogonatus  ended  the 
unhappy  strife  by  entering  into  negotiations  with  Dom- 
nus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  to  summon  a  general  council. 
The  Sixth  General  Council  assembled  in  Constanti- 
nople A.D.  680.  A  circular  letter  from  Agatho,  who 
in  the  meantime  had  succeeded  Domnus,  was  destined 
to  perform  somewhat  the  same  part  in  its  decisions 
that  Leo's  had  done  at  Chalcedon.  And  the  doctrinal 
position  of  Agatho  was  little_more  than  a  reproduction 
of^that  of_Leo,  with  only  such  further  development 
of  statement  as  was  necessitated  by  over  two  centuries' 
further  progress  of  thought.  He  affirms  _the_  two 
natures,  two  natural  wills  and  two  activities.  And 
then,  quite  in  the  line  of  Leo,  but  with  much  more 
fulness  and  elaborateness,  he  illustrates  from  the 
Scriptures  the  long  contrast  of  distinctly  human  and 
distinctly  divine  acts  performed  by  our  Lord,  con- 
cluding with  the  affirmation  that  "  scriptural  passages 
must  in  general  be  understood  to  refer  now  to  the 


298  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

humanity,  now  to  the  divinity  of  Christ."  The  symbol 
of  the  council  was  in  substantial  accord  with  the 
views  of  Agatho,  so  that  its  proceedings  may  be  cor- 
rectly characterized  as  supplementary  to  those  of 
Chalcedon. 

Apart  from  the  doctrinal  symbol  adopted  by  the 
council,  the  points  of  interest  connected  with  it  are 
the  following.  The  Emperor  Constantine  Pogonatus 
opened  the  proceedings  in  person,  attended  by 
thirteen  officers  of  the  court.  On  his  left  hand 
were  ranged  the  Roman  legates,  the  archbishop  of 
Ravenna  and  "  the  remaining  bishops  subject  to 
Rome";  on  his  right  hand  were  the  patriarchs  of 
Constantinople,  Antioch,  and  a  representative  of  the 
patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  "  the  remaining  bishops 
subject  to  Constantinople."  Thus  the  relative  posi- 
tions of  primacy  accorded  to  the  two  capital  cities  of 
the  world,  Old  and  New  Rome,  were  duly  observed. 
Early  in  the  council  complaints  were  received  from 
the  legates  of  Agatho  of  the  novel  teaching  of  Cyrus 
of  Alexandria  and  Sergius  of  Constantinople  and 
his  three  successors  with  regard  to  the  one  activity 
and  will  of  our  Lord.  Nothing  was  said  of  Honorius 
who  had  developed  their  opinions  into  the  Monothe- 
litism  which  the  council  was  assembled  to  condemn. 
In  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  actions  the  whole  cor- 
respondence of  Cyrus,  Sergius  and  Honorius  to  which 
reference  was  made  in  the  historical  sketch  was  read 
before  the  council.  Whereupon  these  three  with  the 
three  successors  of  Sergius  were  cast  out  of  the  church 
as  heretics  and  betrayers  of  the  truth. 

The  definition  signed  by  all  present  at  the  close,  in 


John  of  Damascus.  299 

the  presence  of  the  emperor,  consisted  of  (i)  a  dec- 
laration of  agreement  with  the  five  previous  general 
councils  of  the  church,  (2)  the  recital  and  acceptance 
of  the  two  creeds  of  Nicaea  and  Constantinople  in  their 
original  forms,  (3)  its  own  definition,  to  which  was 
appended  the  anathema  against  those  by  name,  in- 
cluding Honorius,  who  had  been  condemned  for 
Monothelitism.  Agatho  having  died  about  the  time 
of  the  close -of  the  council,  the  proceedings  were 
transmitted  by  the  emperor  to  his  successor  Leo  II., 
who  promptly  returned  his  acceptance  of  all  the  acts 
of  the  council,  including  the  excommunication  of 
Honorius  as  a  traitor  to  the  faith. 

In  the  middle  of  the  following  century  (about  A.D. 
750)  the  long  course  of  theological  and  Christological 
thought  that  constituted  the  conciliar  period  of  the 
church  came  to  a  close  in  the  person  of  John  of  Da- 
mascus, who  sums  up  and  completes  the  dogmatical 
contribution  of  the  Greek  Church  to  the  Christian 
faith.  His  principal  work,  "  Concerning  the  Orthodox 
Faith,"  covers  all  the  results  of  the  great  councils. 
But  he  treats  in  a  separate  work  the  question  of  the 
two  wills,  activities  and  remaining  natural  attributes 
of  Christ.  "  The  same  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  he  says, 
"  we  acknowledge  to  be  perfect  God  and  perfect  man. 
He  had  all  that  the  Father  had  with  the  exception 
of  aseity  [i.e.  the  Son  is  from  the  Father  while  the 
Father  is  a  se,  from  himself  alone] ;  and  all  that  the 
first  Adam  had  with  the  exception  of  sin.  Whatever 
naturally  pertained  to  the  two  natures  of  which  he 
was  constituted  was  also  his, — two  natural  wills,  the 
divine  and  the  human ;  two  natural  activities ;  a  double 


300  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

natural  freedom  of  will,  a  divine  and  a  human ;  and 
twofold  wisdom  and  twofold  knowledge.  These  are 
the  natural  attributes  without  which  the  natures  can- 
not subsist "  (Dorner).  It  will  be  seen  that  John  of 
Damascus  presses  to  the  utmost  the  conclusions  of 
the  councils.  But  beyond  clearer  statements  and 
fuller  arguments  he  makes  no  further  advance,  if  any 
such  remained  to  be  made,  in  the  science  of  Christol- 
ogy.  After  a  brief  interval  the  concili-ar  period  was 
to  be  succeeded  by  the  scholastic. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

ADOPTIONISM. 

]ITH  John  of  Damascus  the  long-sustained 
movement  of  thought  that  had  been  the 
life  of  the  conciliar  period  came  to  a  close 
without  completing  its  immediate  task. 
Maximus,  the  Sixth  General  Council  and 
the  general  summation  of  Christological  results  so  far 
attained  leftjhe__picture  of  the  person  of  Christ  lack- 
ing, by  just  one  crowning  trait,  organic  and  logical 
completion.  And  the  final  step  had  of  necessity  to 
be  taken  somewhere,  unless  the  mind  of  the  church 
were  to  cease  to  perform  its  living  function. 

The  step  was  taken  or  attempted  in  an  unexpected 
quarter  and  under  new  and  strange  conditions,  but  that 
the  effort  was  a  direct  continuation  of  the  process  of 
Christological  construction  which  we  have  been  trac- 
ing will  appear  of  itself.  That  Adoptionism  like 
Nestorianism — with  which  though  at  a  much  later 
stage  and  with  distinct  differences  and  improvements 
it  in  general  agreed — meritecLand  needed  decisive 
correction  if  not  the  summary  condemnation  it  re- 
ceived, we  shall  endeavor  to  show.  But  we  shall  also 
endeavor  to  show  that  the  church,  whose  action  in 
the  matter  is  happily  not  to  be  received  as  universal 

301 


302  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

or  final,  by  its  indiscriminate  and  unqualified  practical 
extinction  of  Adoptionism  inflicted  upon  itself  an 
almost  irreparable  loss  and  regression.  It  has  been 
affirmed  or  admitted  much  more  widely  than  by  Dr. 
Dorner  that  the  extirpation  of  Adoptionism  had  the 
practical  effect  of  wiping  out  the  gain  of  the  later 
general  councils  and  putting  back  the  mind  of  the 
church  to  the  stage  of  Cyril  and  the  period  preceding 
the  decrees  of  Chalcedon.  In  order  to  judge  of  the 
justice  of  this  charge  let  us  briefly  trace  the  doctrinal 
origin,  development  and  fate  of  Adoptionism. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  action  of  Chalcedon 
and  of  the  Sixth  and  last  General  Council,  the  Third 
of  Constantinople,  was  gradually  to  develop  the  doc- 
trine of  the  real  humanity  of  our  Lord.  Let  us  recall 
the  terms  in  which  John_jof  Damascus  had  summed 
up  the  result  of  two  and  a  half  centuries  of  controversy 
upon  this  one  point :  "  Whatever  pertained  to  the  two 
natures  of  which  our  Lord  was  constituted  was  also 
his, — two  natural  wills,  the  divine  and  the  human ; 
two  natural  activities;  a  double  natural  freedom  of 
will,  a  divine  and  a  human  ;  and  twofold  wisdom  and 
twofold  knowledge.  These  are  the  natural  attributes 
without  which  the  natures  cannot  exist."  It  is  un- 
necessary to  attempt  to  trace  the  chain  of  circum- 
stances by  which  at  the  clpsejaf  the  .eighth  century, 
a  hundred  years  after  the  termination  of  Greek  Chris- 
tology,  the  problem  should  be  taken  up  just  where  it 
had  been  broken  off  by  the  German  or  Gothic  mind 
of  the  farthest  West,  now  ?6r  the  first  time  specula- 
tively  awakened.  But  so  it  was:  Elipandus,  arch- 
bishop of  Toledo  and  primate  of  Spain,  Felix  of 


Meaning  of  Adoptionism.  303 

Urgellis,  and  perhaps  the  great  body  of  the  Spanish 
church,  then  found  themselves  attempting  to  carry 
out  to  its  logical  conclusion  the  unfinished  task  of  the 
last  general  council  in  the  East. 

The  conclusion  that  forced  itself  on  their  mind  was 
somewhat  as  follows :  to  attribute  to  our  Lord  (i)  two 
natures,  (2)  two  activities  proper  or  characteristic  of 
the  natures,  (3)  two  wills  or  volitional  centres,  and 
(4)  a  twofold  consciousness  and  freedom,  is  already 
to  have  conceded  to  him  a  twofold  personality.  Herein 
appeared  at  last  the  consequence  that  had  all  along 
been  so  much  dreaded  and  its  appearance  developed 
at  once  not  only  a  blind  and  indiscriminating  oppo- 
sition but  also  a  practical  retraction  and  abandonment 
of  the  whole  process  that  had  so  logically  led  up  to 
it, — that  is,  all  the  dypphysitic  and  dyothelitic  gains 
of  thejas_t  three  councils. 

Let  us  endeavor  more  comprehensively  and  dis- 
passionately to  discover  what  the  Adoptionists  really 
meant  and  what  was  the  truth  of  our  Lord  that  sought 
utterance  through  them.  Very  much  though  by  no 
means  all  of  the  misunderstanding  arose  from  a 
merely  verbal  ambiguity  that  now  reached  its  culmi- 
nation, from  which  we  ourselves  are  not  yet  free :  the 
use  of  the  terms  "  person  "  and  "  personality."  _^jt 
one  time  we  mean  by  "person  "  simply  and  identically 
what  is  meant  by  a.n  ego,  a  subject  of  spiritual  actiy- 
ities.  At  other  times  we  mean  not  the  ego  merely  as 
such  but  certain  qualities  or  characteristics,  a  certain 
nature  of  the  ego.  Thus  we  define  personality  and 
say  that  a  person  is  one  who  possesses  self-con_scious- 
ness,  reason  and  freedom.  Now  the  whole  catholic 


304  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

contention  against  the  dangerous  tendencies  of  Nes- 
torianism  and  Adoptionism  means  that  there  must  be 
no  risk  of  thinking _or_re£resenting jAw>jy3[os_or_sub- 
jects7a~divine  and  a  human,  in  our  Lord.  Each  in- 
deed louHIydisclaimed  the  two  egos  or  double  per- 
sonalities, but  it  by  no  means  followed  from  that  that 
they  were  not  logically  involved  in  their  teaching,and 
the  church  did  what  it  could  to  have  it  understood 
once  for  all  that  any  system  of  thought  that  by  re- 
motest consequence  involved  them  stood  thereby 
condemned. 

Adoptionism  never  for  an  instant  intentionally  or 
conscio"usTy  implied  two  egos  or  subjects  in  our  Lord. 
It  held  that  the  Logos  was  the  one  subject  equally^of 
his  humanity  and  his  divinity.  When  it  would  ascribe 
to  him  a  human  as  well  as  a  divine  personality  it  used 
the  word  in  quite  the  other  sense,  arriving  at  its  con- 
clusion somewhat  in  the  following  way :  if  one  define 
personality  to  consist  in  or  to  be  self-consciousness, 
reason  and  freedom,  and  if  one  ascribe  to  our  Lord 
with  John  of  Damascus,  representing  the  mind  of  the 
church,  a  distinctively  and  properly  human  conscious- 
ness, reason  and  freedom — how  can  one  deny  him 
human  personality?  Not  that  our  Lord  is  two  egos 
or  persons  in  that  sense,  but  that  the  one  Lord  in  his 
divine  consciousness,  reason,  freedom,  character  and 
activity  is  a  divine  person,  and  in  his  human  con- 
sciousness, reason,  freedom,  character  and  activity  is 
a  human  person.  He  is  not  alius  et  alius  but  he  is 
aliter  et  aliter;  he  is  notjtwo  persons  but  in  the  sense 
in  which  we  have  defined  the  terms  he  possesses  two 
personalities  or  modes  of  personal  _  consciousness, 


Nature  of  our  Lord's  "  Sons  hip"     305 

thought,  volition  and  action.  He  is  as  truly  a  man, 
which  means  a  human  person,  as  he  is  God,  which 
means  a  divine  person.  Adcptionism  claimed  to  be 
equally  in  agreement  with  the  church  in  affirming  the 
one  person  of  the  Lord  and  in  holding  with  the  decrees 
of  451  and  680  his  twofold  personal  consciousness, 
will  and  activity.  What  was  the  meaning,  it  asked, 
of  all  that  affirmation  of  a  proper  human  nature,  will, 
activity,  consciousness,  reason  and  freedom  in  our 
Lord,  but  that  the  Son  of  God  was  incarnate  not  in 
an  irrational,  involuntary  and  impersonal  but  in  a  ra- 
tional, free  and  personal  human  nature  and  life? 

The  motive  and  meaning  of  Adoptionism  will  better 
appear,  however,  if  we  begin  with  the  proper  starting- 
point  from  which  it  took  its  name.  Because  of  the 
ambiguity  that  has  been  pointed  out  it  wisely  did  not 
take  its  stand  upon  the  claim  of  a  twofold  personality 
but  upon  that  of  the  twofold  Sonskip  of  our  Lord. 

The  personal  designations  of  the  incarnate  Lord 
we  know  were  two,  Logos  or  Word  and  Son  of  God. 
Of  these  the  first  designates  him  properly  only  in  his 
deity  but  the  second  may  describe  him  in  both  his 
divine  and  human  natures.  Both  as  God  and  as  man 
our  Lord  is  Son  of  God.  His  divine,  proper  or  nat- 
ural Sonship  by  eternal  generation  from  the  substance 
of  the  Father  had  been  thoroughly  developed  and 
defined  and  was  universally  understood  and  accepted 
through  the  Trinitarian  theology  of  the  church.  All 
were  equally  willing  to  accept  the  truth  expressed  in 
the  term  "  Theotocos  "  and  in  Theopaschitism, — the 
Son  of  Mary  is  Son  of  God,  and  God  suffered  for  us. 
What  is  true  of  our  Lord  in  one  nature  may  be  pred- 


306  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

icated  of  him  in  the  other,  or  whatever  is  true  of 
either  nature  is  true  of  him  who  is  the  personality  of 
both. 

But  Adoptionism  while  accepting  these  truths  at- 
tempted, with  what  success  we  shall  see,  to  proceed 
to  another:  that  of  our  Lord's  not  divine  but  human 
Sonship  to  God.  In  the  spirit  in  which  Maximus  in 
vindication  of  the  human  activity  of  Christ  had  said, 
"  He  as  a  man  subjected  humanity  to  God  " — i.e. 
brought  it  back  into  unity  with  the  divine  nature  and 
life, — in  precisely  the  same  spirit  and  sense,  though 
further  developed,  the  Adoptionists  taught  that  Jesus 
Christ  as  man  had  brought  humanity  in  his  person 
into  a  new  relationship  of  sonship  to  God.  The  Son- 
ship  thus  predicated  of  our  Lord  and  first  realized  by 
him  in  humanity  is  distinctively  human  and  not  divine, 
o^_gxace_and-4iot Jiy__jialu.re ;  whereas  in_his_eternal 
and  divine  nature  he  is  vibg  Idioc,  proper  or  essential 
Son  of  God,  in  his  human  nature  or  as  man  he  is  vwg 
Oerog,  constituted  or  adopted  Son  of  God. 

Truth  in  itself  and  scriptural  value  underlay  this 
point  of  view  to  a  degree  not  apprehended  by  the 
catholic  mind  of  the  church,  and  for  the  time  being 
that  mind  rejected  it.  As  it  has  come  up  again  and 
will  continue  to  come  up  for  rehearing  and  a  fairer 
judgment  it  may  be  well  to  glance  in  passing  at  its 
New  Testament  basis. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Eghesians  St.  Paul  describes 
humanity  as  having  been  eternally  predestined  to 
vioOeoia,  or  the  relation  to  God  of  a  vibg  Oero^.  Trans- 
lated into  ordinary  language  this  means  that  man  is 
constituted  by  his  spiritual  nature  to  enter  or  be 


Human  Sons/tip  by  Natiire  and  by  Grace.  307 

taken  into  such  a  participation  in  the  divine  nature 
and  life  as  to  become  son  of  God.  The  New  Testa- 
ment point  of  view  is  that  sonship  in  this  sense  is  not 
natural  but  to  be  acquired.  In  our  Lord  himself  in 
whom  it  is  first  humanly  realized  it  does  not  result 
from  the  fact  of  his  human  nature  but  from  the  act  i 
of  his  human  life.  He  as  man  made  humanity  son 
of  God. 

There  is  indeed  a  sense  in  which  even  man  may  be 
called  son  of  God  by  nature.  If  God  is  the  father  of 
spirits  and  finite  spirits  are  not  mere  products  of 
nature  but  children  of  God  there  is  a  natural  and  es- 
sential kinship  or  sonship  of  every  human  soul  to  God. 
But  it  is  evident  that  though  this  be  so  and  be  pre- 
supposed, the  point  of  view  of  the  New  Testament 
is  at  most  that  this  is  only  a  potential  sonship  and 
has  to  be  actualized  in  the  case  of  every  individual 
soul  by_an_act  of  divine  grace  on  one  side  and  of 
human  faith  on  the  other.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  may 
be  correct  to  say  that  the  grace  and  faith  in  each-case 
only  condition  and  bring  to  actuality  an  already  ex- 
istent sonship.  But  as  a  matter  of  actual  usage  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament  is  that  the  grace  and 
the  faith  originate  and  constitute  the  sonship.  They 
have  made  humanity  in  Christ  son  of  God  and  they 
enable  every  human  being  in  Christ  to  become  son 
of  God.  The  sonship  is  not  by  generation  but  by 
regeneration.  Man  is  indeed  constituted  by  his  na- 
ture to  become  son  of  God  but  he  becomes  so  only 
by  an  act  of  the  personal  Godhead  and  of  his  own 
personal  manhood.  To  as  many  as  receive  him  does 
the  Son  of  God  give  power  to  become  sons  of  God. 


308  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

There  is  however  no  real  contradiction  between  those 
who  contend  that  "the  act :  of  grace  and  faith  only 
brings  to  actuality  the  fact  of  sonship  and  those  who 
contend  that  it  creates  it  if  each  will  but  recognize 
the  difference  of  point  of  view  and  of  the  sense  in 
which  terms  are  used.  Sonship  could  not  be  imparted 
to  one  whose  nature  it  was  not  to  be  and  who  was 
not  therefore  potentially  already  a  son,  and  mere 
potential  sonship  is  nothing  until  it  becomes  actual. 

Without  going  further  into  these  questions,  the 
teaching  of  St.  Paul  and  we  may  say  that  of  all  the 
epistles  of  the  New  Testament  is  that  it  j.s.the  natural 
predestination  of  human  nature  to  find  its  complement 
and  completion  in  a  participation,  in  the  divine  nature, 
humanjife  in  the  divine  life.  And  this  vioOeaia  was 
to  be  attained  "through  Jesus  Christ"  (Eph.  i.  5). 
In  the  man  Christ  Jesus  humanity  attained  the  adop- 
tion of  sons,  was  made  and  became  son  of  God. 

Similarly  in  Romans  viii.  29 :  in  the  divine  fore- 
knowledge men  are  predestinated  to  be  conformed  to 
the  image  of  God's  Son,  who  is  thus  to  be  "  fjrst>be- 
gotten  or  first-born  among  many  brethren."  Here 
we  Ho  not  wish  to  deny  that  the  Son  spoken  of  is 
vib$  Idiog,  the  divine  and  eternal  personal  archetype  in 
heaven  of  all  human  sonship  upon  earth.  But  that  he 
was  "  first-born  among  many  brethren,"  when  taken 
in  connection  with  the  general  analogy  of  the  New 
Testament  teaching,  can  only  mean  that  our^Lqrd  as 
man  first  realized  in  his  humanity  that  divine  Sonship 
into  participation  in  which  he  was  to  bring  many 
brethren.  Thus  he  who  was  in  his  deity  essential  or 
proper  Son  of  God  in  his  humanity  was  constituted 


Appeal  to  Scripture.  309 

or  became  through  his  holy  obedience  and  self-sacri- 
fice Son  of  God  by  grace  and  adoption.  He  was 
(Rom.  i.  3)  nara  nvevjia  dyiwavvr]^,  through  his  offering 
of  himself  by  the  eternal  Spirit  without  spot  to  God, 
constituted  and  instituted  Son  of  God  in  power  by  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead. 

The  whole  argument  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
illustrates  this  truth.  The  essential  and  eternal  Son- 
ship,  it  can  easily  be  proved,  is  everywhere  presup- 
posed, but  the  Sonship  actually  treated  of  is  that 
human  one  first  realized  in  the  person  of  the  man 
Christ  Jesus.  He  who  was  before  all  things  and  by 
whom  all  things  exist  and  consist  was  as  man,  through 
self-fulfilment  in  nature  and  grace,  to  become  heir  of 
all  things,  to  be  himself  the  crown  of  his  own  creation 
(i.  2).  When  he  had  in  our  nature  made  purgation 
of  our  sins,  he  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Maj- 
esty on  high,  having  lifted  humanity  in  his  person  to 
its  destiny_  aboye^  the  angels  (i.  3).  We  see  not  yet 
humanity  as  a  whole  but  we  do  see  it  already  in  him 
through  death  crowned  with  glory  and  honor.  It 
was  necessary  that  God  in  bringing  many  sons  to 
glory  should  first  perfect  the  great  leader  and  captain 
of  their  salvation  through  suffering.  Already  in  him 
has  humanity  been  sanctified  through  the  destruction 
of  sin  and  death  and  him  who  through  these  had  had 
the  dominion  over  it  (ii.  8,  etc.).  We  are  partakers 
with  Christ  in  all  that  he  has  wrought  and  become  for 
us  if  we  hold  fast  our  faith  in  him  (iii.  14).  We  have 
not  in  him  one  unlike  or  incapable  of  sympathizing 
with  us,  but  one  who  tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we 
are  was  yet  without  sin  (iv.  14).  Having  learned 


310  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

obedience  by  the  things  he  suffered  and  having  been 
himself  perfected  he  became  the  author  of  the  eternal 
salvation  of  us  all  (v.  9).  Thus  he  as  our  forerunner 
has  entered  for  us  within  the  veil.  He  has  brought 
us  in  him  into  unity  with  the  divine  nature  and  life 
(vi.  20).  The  law  made  men  high  priests  who  were 
still  sinful  and  imperfect  but  the  true  high  priest  of 
humanity  is  vib$  hg  rbv  ai&va  rereAefw/ievof,  one  who 
has  been  perfected  forever  as  Son  or  who  has  attained 
and  entered  into  a  forever  perfected  and  complete 
relation  of  Sonship  to  God  (vii.  28).  We  might  go 
thus  through  every  chapter  and  show  how  Jesus 
Christ  was  not  only  the  perfect  divine  grace  but  also 
the  perfect  human  faith  and  obedience  which  together 
constitute  the  vioOeaia,  the  human  sonship  of  which 
as  man  he  was  the  author. 

Such  a  Sonship  by  grace  the  Adoptionists  predicated 
of  our  Lord  in  his  humanity  without  at  all  impugning 
the  proper  and  essential  Sonship  of  his  ^divinity.  It 
is  questioned  by  some  who  would  impute  obscurity 
and  uncertainty  to  their  views  whether  they  meant 
to  associate  the  divine  adoption  of  humanity  in  Christ 
with  his  birth,  baptism  or  resurrection.  Their  mean- 
ing is  clear  enough  and  is  true. 

In  the  first  place  it  was  just  the  true  principle  at  the 
root  of  the  whole  movement  that  the  change  wrought 
in  humanity  by  the  incarnation  was  not  the  immediate, 
physical  and  necessary  result  of  the  assumption  but 
the  free,  spiritual  and  personal  result  of  an  adoption. 
Humanity  became  son  of  God  not  by  the  mere  fact, 
ipso  facto,  of  God  becoming  man  but  by  the  conse- 
quent and  complementary  act  of  man  becoming 


Sonskip  and  the  Resurrection.        311 

partaker  of  the  nature  and  life  of  God.  The  human 
sonship  represented  by  Jesus  Christ  was  not  by  fact 
of  his  deity  alone  but  by  act  of  his  humanity  also. 
It  was  therefore  not  the  result_of  the  mere  birth,  of 
deity  into  humanity  r*~~ 

In  the  second  place  there  are  stronger  appearances 
of  an  Adoptionist  connection  of  our  Lord's  adoption 
or  becoming  Son  of  God  with  his  baptism.  In  an 
outward  way  we  may  say  that  he  became  Son  of  God 
not  by  the  physical  act  of  being  born  but  by  the 
spiritual  act  of  being  baptized  and  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  In  this  way  he  is  not  physically  but  spiritually 
Son  of  God.  We  know  that  at  his  baptism  the 
heavens  were  opened,  the  Holy  Ghost  descended 
upon  him,  and  in  that  fulness  of  the  Spirit  which  was 
his  anointing  and  constituted  him  the  Christ  the  voice 
of  the  Father  proclaimed  him  the  beloved  Son  in 
whom  he  was  well  pleased.  There  was  a  profound 
truth  in  this,  in  that  it  represents  the  Sonship  as  not 
natural  and  necessary  but  spiritual  and  free. 

But  in  the  third  place  the  human  sonship  attained 
for  us  by  our  Lord  is  as  little  in  all  its  reality  consti- 
tuted by  his  anointing  with  the  Holy  Ghost  as  it  was 
by  his  birth  into  the  world.  Both  of  these  were 
precedent  conditions  but  injftsjelf -it  consisted  in  the 
spiritual  act  by  which  in  consequence  of  them  hu- 
manity became  actually  something  new  and  divine. 
By  such  an  act  of  his  whole  life  as  truly  and  com- 
pletely human  as  it  was  divine,  finished  upon  Calvary 
and  consummated  and  crowned  at  the  right  hand  of 
God,  hejvas  himselfjxmstituted  and  constituted^ hu- 
manity in  himself  Son  of  God.  This  act  was  in  and 


312  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

of  itself  a  literal  and  real  atonement  or  reconciliation, 
redemption  and  resurrection  of  us  all.  As  in  Adam 
all  were  dead  so  in  Christ  all  were  risen.  He  de- 
stroyed death  and  brought  life  and  immortality  to 
light  as  previously  he  had  in  the  likeness  of  our  sinful 
flesh  condemned  and  destroyed  sin  in  our  flesh  and 
raised  the  spirit  in  us  to  holiness  and  God.  As  he 
died  to  sin  and  lived  to  God  so  we  are  to  account 
ourselves  through  him  dead  to  sin  and  alive  to  God. 
It  was  in  perfect  consistency  with  such  representations 
that  the  Adoptionists  dated  the  realization  of  the 
human  sonship  to  God  of  which  Jesus  Christ  was  the 
author  not  from  the  act  of  natural  birth  and  only 
symbolically  or  sacramentally  from  that  of  his  baptism 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  but  really  and  finally  from  the 
moment  of  the  resurrection  of  humanityJiiKis^person 
from  sin  and  death'.  In  the  flesh  of  the  first  Adam 
our  Lord  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David  but  in  the 
spirit  or  spiritual  manhood  of  the  second  Adam  into 
which  humanity  was  raised  in  him  he  was  constituted 
and  instituted  Son  of  God  in  power  by  his  resur- 
rection from  the  dead  (Rom.  i.  4). 

The  truth  then  of  the  human  becoming  Son  of  God 
of  our  Lord  himself  in  our  nature  is  strictly  scriptural. 
And  it  is  just  as  truly  catholic  in  the  sense  that  the 
true  meaning  and  function  of  our  Lord's  humanity  in 
deity  will  not  come  to  organic  completeness  without  it. 

There  was  however  a  limitation  in  the  view  of  the 
Adoptionists  that  not  only  prevented  success  in  carry- 
ing out  the  truth  for  which  they  stood  but  also  brought 
them  into  a  collision  with  the  church  as  hurtful  to  it 
as  it  was  fatal  to  them.  Dwelling  upon  the  personally 


Error  of  Adoptionism.  313 

human  agency  of  our  Lord  in  the  life  and  work  of  the 
incarnation  and  so  upon  his  true  and  complete  man- 
hood, they  formed  to  themselves  a  conception  of  the 
man  Christ  Jesus  as  needlessly  as  it  was  unwarrant- 
ably inadequate.  Our  Lord  was  indeed  very  man, 
more  truly  even  because  more  wholly  and  completely 
man  than  \ve  ourselves,  but  that  does  not  mean  that 
he  is  only  a  single  or  particular  human  being  precisely 
in  the  sense  in  which  one  of  us  is  so.  The  Nestorians 
with  all  their  endeavor  had  found  it  impossible  to  rise 
above  that  limited  notion  of  our  Lord's  personal  man- 
hood, and  of  the  Adoptionists  it  must  be  confessed 
that,  however  theoretically  they  might  protest  to  the 
contrary,  practically  they  represented  him  in  a  manner 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  personal  identity  of  the 
human  Jesus  with  the  eternal  divine  Word.  They 
did  not  successfully  attain  the  point  of  seeing  how  the 
personal  human  Jesus  could  be  himself  the  personal 
divine^Lpgos.  Thus  they  contended  that  the  man 
Christ  Jesus,  he  who  was_sprTpf  Mary,  son  of  David, 
son  of  Adam,  could  not  be  properly  or  essentially  Son 
ofjGod.  He  could  be  so  called  nuncupatively  by 
reason  of  his  identification  with  the  eternal  Son  or 
Logos,  but  in  himself  humanly  he  was  Son  of  man 
only  and  not  Son  of  God.  We  are  told  in  the  Scrip- 
tures that  God  was  in  Christ  but  not  that  he  was 
Christ  or  that  Christ  was  God.  This  is  very  like  the 
Nestorian  explaining  away  "  the  Logos  became  man  " 
into  "  the  Logos  united  himself  with  man  or  with  a 
man."  On  the  whole  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  Adoptionist  representation  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus 
as  a  limited  and  individual  human  being  like  one  of 


314  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

us  did, justify  the  charge  of  their  great  antagonist 
Alcuin  that  though  they  did  not  mean  it  their  posi- 

\  tion  led  practically  to  a  Nestorian  twofold  personality 

1  of  the  Lord. 

It  would  have  been  infinitely  better  if  the  church 
instead  of  extirpating  Adoptionism  for  its  incomplete- 
ness had  taken  it  up  and  carried  it  on  into  a  true 
catholic  completion.  What  was  needed  to  do  this 
was  a  truer  and  fuller  construction  of  our  Lord's  hu- 
manity than  had  yet  been  attained.  What  the  Adop- 
tionists  failed  to  see  needed  to  be  shown,  that  it  -Was 
possible  to  ascribe  to  our  Lord  a  true  personal,  hii- 
manity  that  was  in  itself  also  true  and  proper  personal 
deity  jaslead  of  being  only  united  or  associated  withjt. 
In  order  to  appreciate  this  it  is  necessary  to  reflect 
upon  the  peculiar  predicates  applied  and  applicable 
to  our  Lord's  manhood  alone  among  men.  Of  whom 
else  beside  him  can  it  be  said  that  he  recapitulates 
and  includes  humanity  in  himself  and  is  the  head  .of 
it?  or  that  he  is  not  a  single  and  limited  human 
individual  but  univejaalliuruanjty,  all  men  and  every 
man  ?  And  let  it  be  specially  observed,  he  not  only 
possesses  .the  nature  of  every  man  but  is  the  person- 
ality of  every  man.  Every  human  being  may  say 
and  ought  to  say  "  Not  I  but  Christ."  The  universal 
and  everlasting  relation  of  every  man  to  the  persQnal 
manhood  of  Jesus  Christ  at  once  differentiates  hirn^as 
man  from  every  other  man  and  that  without  impairing 
in  the  least  the  propriety  or  reality  of  his  manhood. 

Let  us  attempt  a  construction  of  what  might  truly 
be  called  our  Lord's  personal  humanity  which  instead 
of  being  compelled  with  the  Adoptionists  to  deny  its 


Christ  Universal  Humanity.          315 

proper  divinity  shall  feel  itself  compelled  to  include  it. 
And  we  shall  appeal  not  to  the  scientific  definitions 
but  to  the  intuitive  faith  and  practical  experience  of 
the  church  from  the  beginning  with  regard  to  the 
human  person  of  its  Lord.  The  human  Christ  is  the 
same  to  every  human  soul  that  knows  him  or  is  so 
just  in  proportion  as  it  knows  him  really  and  truly. 
He  is  the  same  not  only  "  yesterday,  to-day  and 
forever"  but  also  universally  or  to  every  actual  know- 
ledge or  experience  of  him. 

Now  how  shall  we  describe  just  what  our  Lord  is 
in  his  humanity  to  every  human  being?  There  is  in 
every  finite^  spjrit_o£jpan  by  virtue  of  his  kinship  to 
the  Father  of  spirits  an  element  and  aspect  of  infini- 
tude. That  is  to  say,  whiilef There  is  in  him  what  is 
particular  or  jndividual  there  is  that  in  him  also  which 
is  universal.  Every  one  who  reflects  is  more  or  less 
conscious  that  every  folly  or  fault  of  which  he  is  guilty 
is  an  offence  against  an  absolute  standard  of  wisdom, 
righteousness  and  goodness  which  is  the  only  true 
measure  of  himself.  Sin  isj:he  transgression  of  the 
particular  _  against  the.  universal  or  absolute  in  us. 
Now  Jesus  Christ  is  the  personal  human  perfection 

^— ^BOPI^*  ^~   ndta  ii    ii     T-  i      .      _  .- .— T T— — — —  -^  — "*" 

of  every  human  person.  It  is  the  end  of  every  man 
to  J3ec.ome  Christ.  When  we  speak  of  the  inner,  truer, 
ideal^jman  that,  is  in  .every  man  we  appeal  from  the 
particular  to  the  universal,  from  the  limited  to  the 
absolute,  from  the  human  to  the  divine  in  him.  To 
say  that  Christ  is  our  wisdom  is  to  say  that  he  is  our 
reason  or  understanding  in  its  absolute  form ;  to  say 
that  he  is  our  righteousness  is  to  say  that  he  is  the 
absolute  freedom  of  our  wills,  our  spiritual  and  moral 


316  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

activities ;  to  say  that  he  is  our  life  is  to  say  that  he 
is  not  only  our  nature  but  ourselves  raised  above 
all  limitation  or  contradiction  of  sin  and  death  and 
brought  into  participation  in  the  absolute  and  eternal 
life  of  God. 

All  this  is  contained  in  the  single  consciousness 
which  is  distinctive  of  Christianity,  "  not  I  but  Christ." 
Christ  instead  of  the  ego  to  a  man  does  not  mean  to 
him  the  loss  but  the  gain  of  his  personality.  It  means 
the  substitution  for  his  outer,  particular  and  separate 
self  of  his  inner,  universal  and  divine  self.  Let  any 
one  reflect  upon  all  that  it  means  to  pass  out  of  one's 
self  into  Christ  and  it  will  be  realized  that  it  is  only 
that  losing  which  is  the  true  finding  one's  self. 

We  realize  that  that  faculty  which  we  call  reason 
is  in  us  both  a  faculty  or  organ  of  the  infinite  and 
itself  an  infinite  faculty.  There  is  no  limit  whatever 
to  man's  possible  conception  of  truth,  beauty  and 
goodness.  In  the  same  way  there  is  no  natural  limit 
to  the  possibility  of  a  true  freedom  or  liberty  of  the 
human  will ;  there  is  no  perfect  freedom  for  us  short 
of  the  infinite  or  absolute  one  of  unity  with  the  will 
of  God.  "  Be  ye  perfect  as  your  Father  in  heaven  is 
perfect "  is  the  only  limit  and  measure  of  our  own 
wisdom  and  righteousness.  Now  as  wisdom,  true 
freedom  or  righteousness  and  in  general  what  we  may 
call  character  is  an  infinite  or  absolute  thing,  so  that 
human  personality  which  is  the  subject  of  all  these  is 
in  itself  also  an  infinite,  eternal  and  absolute  thing. 
The  French  philosopher  Janet  has  laid  down  the 
principle  that  in  every  man  we  must  distinguish  be- 
tween his  individuality  and  his  personality.  The  in- 


God  the  Essence  of  our  Personality.  3 1 7 

dividuality  is  that  in  him  which  is  particular ;  it  is  the 
accidents  that  differentiate  him  from  other  individuals 
of  the  same  genus  or  species.  The  personality  is 
that  in  him  which  is  essential  and  universal.  As  the 
man  loses  in  individuality  through  the  unity  of  the 
common  reason  and  freedom,  especially  through  that 
of  the  common  spirit  and  life  of  charity  or  love,  he 
gains  in  personality,  so  that  when  every  man's  person- 
ality becomes  perfect  or  absolute  all  men  will  become 
one,  and  yet  so  that  while  each  man  then  shall  be  all 
he  will  only  then  also  be  perfectly  himself. 

We  might  say  then  that  as  each  man's  universal  or 
absolute  reason  is  the  divine  reason,  his  freedom  or 
righteousness  the  divine  freedom  and  his  character  the 
divine  character,  so  the  absolute  personality  of  every 
man,  which  is  compounded  of  rational  consciousness, 
moral  freedom  and  spiritual  character,  is  not  something 
apart  from  God  but  is  rather  God  himself  personally 
realized  and  fulfilled  in  us.  In  this  way  the  divine 
Logos  and  Christ,  the  divine  man  who  is  our  Lord, 
is  eternal  and  absolute  humanity.  "  Not  I  but  Christ  " 
does  not  mean  "  not  I  but  the  Logos  or  the  Second 
Person  in  the  Trinity  "  :  it  means  "  not  I  but  my  es- 
sential and  true  self  or  personality  "  which  while  it  is 
in  the  truest  sense  "  I  "  is  also  God. 

The  conclusions  thus  reached  with  regard  to  our 
Lord's  personal  humanity  are  drawn  inductively  not 
only  from  the  predicates  that  are  by  common  consent 
applied  to  him  but  also  from  the  actual  relations  that 
all  men  spiritually  bear  to  him.  It  is  an  actual  matter 
of  fact  to  all  those  who  make  experience  of  it  that  he 
is  our  universal  and  eternal  selves.  No  individual  or 


318  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

particular  man  could  be  that  to  us,  while  that  he  can 
be  and  is  so  is  with  us  a  matter  of  spiritual  verification 
and  knowledge.  This  is  in  a  sense  arguing  from  our- 
selves to  our  Lord,  from  the  particular  in  ourselves 
to  the  general  or  universal  in  him,  but  it  is  in  accord 
with  the  somewhat  more  a  priori  speculative  conclu- 
sions of  the  church.  As  Christ  is  our  eternal  or  divine 
so  are  we  his  temporal  and  human  image  or  expression. 
It  is  he  who  was  from  the  first  intended  or  predestined 
to  be  expressed  or  to  express  himself  in  humanity. 
A  perfect  work  of  art  combines  in  itself  two  elements ; 
it  is  not  only  the  perfect  material  expression  of  an 
idea  but  it  is  also  the  idea  perfectly  expressed  in  the 
material.  In  a  much  truer  and  higher  sense  perfected 
manhood  is  not  merely  humanity  imaging  the  divine 
Logos:  it  is  the  Logos  himself  imaged,  embodied, 
incarnated  in  humanity.  The  essential  truth  of  hu- 
manity is  God  himself  in  it,  not  some  thought  or  idea 
of  his  as  in  the  case  of  the  human  artist  but  his  per- 
sonal reason,  freedom  and  activity,  his  wisdom,  right- 
eousness and  life  freely  and  personally  made  and 
become  those  of  men.  It  was  thus  the  nature  of  the 
Logos  to  become  man  as  it  was  that  of  man  to  be  the 
incarnation  of  the  Logos.  Neither  is  changed  or 
converted  from  itself  in  becoming  the  other  but  only 
realizes  and  fulfils  itself. 

If  the  Adoptionists  could  but  have  seen  the  personal 
humanity  of  our  Lord  in  this  light  they  would  not 
have  felt  themselves  necessitated  to  deny  even  of  his 
manhood  but  on  the  contrary  would  have  been  com- 
pelled to  predicate  of  it  with  the  church  a  proper  and 
essential  divine  Sonship.  They  would  have  been  able 


Fate  of  Adoptionism.  319 

to  reconcile  the  apparently  exclusive  and  incompatible 
truths  that  Jesus  J^hrist. jwas  jn_his  humgtnjty._b.oth 
proper  and  adoptive  Son  of  God.  He  was  both  the 
truth  to  be  realized  and  the  human  realization  of  the 
truth  of  man's  divine  sonship.  The  Sonship  that  was 
his  in  his  deity  became  his  in  his  humanity  and  that 
not  by  the  fact  in  itself  of  his  becoming  man  nor 
yet  by  the  mere  fact  of  his  baptism  from  above  with 
the  fulness  of  the  Holy  Ghost  but  bjM^aJ:j;pJntual 
and  moral  transformation  which  by  its  grace  Jie, ac- 
tually wrought  in  humanity  through  death  to  sin.and 
resurrection  to  God. 

Adoptionism  however  failed  to  rise  to  the  true 
conception  of  our  Lord's  manhood.  Desiring  to  see 
in  him  a  humanity  in  all  points  like  our  own  it  made  him 
only  a  particular  and  limited  human  being  like  our- 
selves and  not  that  universal  and  divine  man  whom 
we  have  .endeavored  to  describe.  To  the  former 
could  only  pertain  as  they  described  it  a  nuncupative 
or  nominal  and  not  the  essential  and  proper  divine 
Sonship  that  belonged  to  the  latter. 

In  a  series  of  local  councils  between  the  years  790 
and  800,  of  which  the  most  notable  was  that  of  Frank- 
fort in  794,  Adoptionism  was  progressively  more  and 
more  condemned  and  reprobated  and  in  a  few  years 
became  extinct. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE   CHRISTOLOGICAL   GOAL. 

HE  goal  of  all  true  Christological  thought 
is  to  arrive  at  such  a  construction  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus 
Christ  as  shall  be  (3)  catholic,  (2)  scrip- 
tural and  (i)  true  in  itself.  This  assumes 
that  there  is  a  person  and  work  of  Christ  which  is  for 
us  the  objective  as  it  is  to  be  the  subjective,  absolute 
truth  of  God,  the  universe  and  ourselves;  that  the 
elements  of  that  truth  were  revealed  through  the  facts 
of  our  Lord's  human  life  and  are  sufficiently  contained 
in  their  scriptural  representation  and  interpretation ; 
and  that  while  the  truth  of  Christ  is  in  one  aspect 
absolute  it  is  also  in  another  sense  relative  to  us  and 
is  to  find  its  ultimate  verification  in  the  universal 
testimony  of  human  reason  and  experience.  The 
imperfect  experience  and  knowledge  of  our  Lord 
which  has  been  attained  by  his  church  as  representing 
the  spiritual  consciousness  and  life  of  humanity  is 
nevertheless  sufficient  to  have  established  a  certitude 
that  will  never  be  lost  from  its  true  and  inmost  mind 
and  heart, — the  certitude  that  in  him  is  realized  and 
contained  the  whole  truth  of  God  in  his  relation  to  man 

320 


Christ  Truer  than  our  Science  of  Him.  321 

and  the  whole  truth  of  man  in  his  relation  to  God. 
To  apprehend  and  state  this  scientifically,  in  terms 
that  will  embrace  all  the  conditions  and  elements  that 
enter  into  so  complex  and  comprehensive  a  fact,  may 
have  baffled  the  speculative  or  reflective  mind  of 
Christendom.  No  one  mind  can  simultaneously  and 
equally  appreciate  all  that  is  involved  in  the  whole 
truth  of  the  incarnation.  The  collective  mind  of  the 
church  which  sooner  or  later  excludes  what  is  spirit- 
ually false  and  includes  what  is  spiritually  true  has 
not  yet  and  in  this  world  never  will  wholly  compre- 
hend or  express  it.  But  the  efforts,  errors  and  cor- 
rections of  the  past  and  the  confirmations,  agreements 
and  certitudes  that  have  been  attained  through  them 
have  at  least  had  the  effect  of  fixing  forever  the  con- 
viction that  however  imperfectly  it  understands  there 
is  yet  a  perfect  truth  which  it  imperfectly  understands, 
and  that  if  it  will  but  be  true  to  that  truth  it  will 
continue  to  grow  as  it  has  grown  in  knowledge  and 
understanding.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  catholic 
mind ;  there  are  already  results  that  have  finally  ap- 
proved themselves  and  will  nevermore  be  shaken. 
Every  real  individual  or  conciliar  contribution  to  such 
a  sum  of  results  has  been  or  will  sooner  or  later  be 
accepted  as  catholic,  and  additions  will  continue  to  be 
made  to  the  end  of  time. 

But  we  must  carefully  discriminate  between  the  fact 
of  Christ  in  the  world  and  the  science  of  Christ  in  the 
world.  The  fact  of  God  in  Christ  reconciling  the 
world  to  himself  and  men  in  Christ  reconciled  to  God 
and  so  redeemed  from  sin  and  raised  out  of  death  has 
existed  continuously  from  the  beginning  and  will 


322  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

continue  to  the  end,  right  through  and  despite  the 
speculative  doubts  and  questionings  and  even  the 
practical  mistakes  and  perversions  of  actual  Chris- 
tianity. The  faithlessness  of  man  will  not  bring  to 
naught  the  faith  of  God.  He  will  be  true  though 
every  man  be  a  liar.  God  in  one  man  and  one  man 
in  God  is  proof  of  what  ought  to  be  the  truth  of  God 
in  every  man  and  every  man  in  God.  And  though 
there  be  not  even  one  such  man,  still  God  is  true  and 
Jesus  Christ  is  his  truth. 

If  we  would  criticise  the  singularly  subtle,  strong 
and  philosophical  as  well  as  theological  mind  of  the 
Greek  world  and  church  of  the  conciliar  period,  we 
should  say  that  its  primary  lack  was  that  of  the  as 
yet  undeveloped  capacity  to  apply  to  its  facts  a 
proper  scientific  or  inductive  method.  It  was  not  of 
course  that  the  fathers  did  not  know  the  Scriptures, 
— they  were  full  of  their  letter,  spirit  and  life, — but 
they  knew  them  as  the  Greeks  knew  nature,  which 
was  certainly  not  as  modern  science  knows  it.  Jesus 
Christ  is  to  be  known  from  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments taken  together  as  science  is  to  be  learned  from 
nature.  It  makes  no  difference  that  one  is  to  be  ap- 
prehended spiritually  and  the  other  physically.  To 
elicit  the  conception  of  the  one  Christ  as  he  reveals 
himself  in  his  own  words  and  deeds,  as  he  is  faithfully 
portrayed  by  the  synoptics,  as  he  interiorly  manifests 
himself  to  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul,  St.  John  and  the  other 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  is  just  as  much  an  act 
of  induction  and  requires  the  same  training  and  qual- 
ities as  the  process  by  which  the  truths,  laws  and 
unity  of  nature  are  scientifically  determined.  As 


The  Inductive  Method.  323 

there  are  a  priori  and  deductive  conclusions  with  re- 
gard to  the  natural  world  that  however  logical,  con- 
sistent or  beautiful  in  themselves  are  not  drawn  from 
and  consequently  are  not  true  to  the  facts  of  the 
world  as  it  is,  so  we  must  say  that  very  much  of  the 
theology  and  Christology  of  the  fathers  is  a  priori  or 
deductive  in  its  character  and  is  neither  derived  from 
nor  consistent  with  the  full  and  exact  mind  of  the 
Scriptures  as  a  whole.  While  catholic  life  was  full  of 
the  fact  of  God  in  Christ  catholic  thought  was  not  as 
able  as  it  is  now  to  see  Jesus  exactly  as  he  is  in 
himself,  as  he  appeared  objectively  to  the  earlier  and 
subjectively  to  the  later  observation  and  knowledge 
of  his  New  Testament  witnesses.  Before  but  espe- 
cially during  the  conciliar  period  the  divinity  of  our 
Lord  shone  too  brightly  for  all  to  be  able  to  see  and 
appreciate  the  completeness  in  its  every  detail  of  his 
humanity  ;  and  the  earlier  and  dominant  Christology, 
constructed  wholly  from  that  side,  presented  some- 
times a  picture  of  it  as  unlike  the  actual  and  scrip- 
tural Jesus  as  the  extremest  a  priori  physical  theory 
of  nature  is  to  its  actual  facts  and  phenomena.  With 
whatever  prepossession  or  freedom  from  prepossession 
we  undertake  it,  the  effect  of  an  exact  spiritual  study 
of  the  mind  of  the  New  Testament,  after  that  of  any 
later  movement  of  Christian  thought,  is  surprise  and 
wondering  admiration.  It  is  as  true  to  the  truth  of 
the  spirit  as  nature  itself  is  to  natural  truth  and  in 
the  same  way.  In  the  first  place  it  is  a  unity  but  a 
unity  in  diversity,  and  as  it  requires  a  whole  mind  to 
see  the  absolute  unity  of  nature  in  its  infinite  diver- 
sity so  also  does  it  to  see  the  one  and  whole  Christ 


324  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

in  his  every  trait  and  aspect  in  the  New  Testament. 
And  in  the  second  place  while  all  the  materials  are 
given  no  induction  is  made  for  us  from  them  but  it 
is  left  to  the  spiritual  science  of  humanity  to  construct 
for  itself  the  Christ  as  it  is  to  physical  science  to  ar- 
rive for  itself  at  the  unity  and  wholeness  of  natural 
knowledge.  In  this  way  we  arrive  a  posteriori  at  a 
sort  of  natural  conviction,  that  confirms  the  instinct  of 
the  church,  of  a  divinity  in  Holy  Scripture  similar  to 
that  in  nature. 

With  the  New  Testament,  all  Christology  must 
begin  with  the  fact  and  facts,  precisely  as  they  are, 
of  the  human  personality  and  personal  life  of  Jesus 
Christ.  The  historical  Jesus  is  human  through  and 
through,  and  who  can  wish  to  limit  or  be  willing  not 
to  sound  and  experience  all  the  blessed  consequences 
of  that  great  fact  ?  Nothing  can  be  truly  said  on  that 
side  of  the  truth  that  one  ought  not  to  be  glad  to 
accept.  At  the  same  time  the  Jesus  of  history  is 
humanity  raised  to  the  power  of  God.  It  is  a  hu- 
manity free  from  sin  and  alive  from  death ;  a  hu- 
manity that  has  rent  from  top  to  bottom  the  veil  of 
flesh  and  entered  in  the  spirit  into  the  holy  of  holies 
of  the  divine  nature  and  life.  Humanity  as  our  Lord 
received  it  was  not  what  it  is  as  he  has  made  it.  His 
conquest  in  it  of  sin  and  death,  his  own  human  death 
to  sin  and  life  to  God  have  constituted  it  at  least  ac- 
tually what  it  was  before  only  potentially,  son  of  God 
through  personal  participation  in  the  divine  nature, 
character  and  life.  All  this  in  him  was  strictly  a 
human  act  and  was  only  what  it  was  the  nature  and 
destination  of  humanity  in  and  through  him  to  do  and 


Christ  the  Way  to  God.  325 

become.  It  is  what  is  meant  by  man's  eternal  pre- 
destination to  vioOeota  or  the  adoption  of  sons  through 
Jesus  Christ  unto  God.  Our  Lord  became  Son  of 
God  through  the  process,  his  whole  human  life  of  love 
and  self-sacrifice  was  itself  indeed  the  process,  by 
which  alone  humanity  becomes  or  can  become  son  of 
God.  He  is  the  way ;  no  ipan  comes  to  the  Father 
but  by  him.  And  the  new  and  living  way  he  has 
opened  is  through  his  flesh,  through  that  supreme 
conquest  and  crucifixion  of  his  flesh  in  which  he  by 
the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God. 
He  is  the  dpxrjybg  ical  TeXeiu-rjg,  the  human  author  and 
perfecter  of  that  faith,  obedience  and  self-sacrifice  by 
means  of  which  as  symbolized  by  his  cross  man  be- 
comes his  own  divine  and  spiritual  instead  of  his  only 
natural  and  carnal  self.  Thus  atonement,  redemption 
and  resurrection  are  all  processes  wrought  in  human- 
ity bringing  it  back  to  God,  holiness  and  life,  and 
they  were  all  wrought  out  in  and  through  the  human 
life,  death  and  life  again  out  of  death  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Thus  Jesus  Christ  as  man  is  not  only 
wbg  Oe-og,  he  is  the  very  vioOeota  of  humanity.  Hu- 
man sonship  to  God  in  its  actuality  at  least  as  dis- 
tinguished from  its  potentiality  was  constituted  and 
consummated  by  his  human  life,  death  and  resurrec- 
tion ;  he  became  and  was  instated  Son  of  God  with 
power  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness  out  of  and 
through  his  resurrection  from  the  dead. 

Recognizing  thus  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  essential 
and  complete  humanity  of  our  Lord  the  Adoptionists, 
as  we  saw,  thought  it  a  contradiction  and  neutraliza- 
tion of  it  to  say  that  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord  in  his 


326  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

humanity,  as  man,  "was  proper  or  essential  Son  of  God. 
As  divine,  they  said,  as  eternal  Logos  he  is  vit>$  1610$ 
but  as  man  he  is  vib$  Oero^.  Thus  they  were  in  danger 
of  thinking  and  representing  two  sonships  and  sons 
in  our  Lord,  both  of  course  personal,  which  would 
make  him  two  persons.  But  now  let  us  think  for  a 
moment  of  just  this  human  Sonship  and  personality  of 
our  Lord.  The  most  characteristic  fact  in  the  New 
Testament,  next  after  the  truth  of  our  Lord's  essential 
and  complete  humanity,  is  its  peculiar  position  and 
relation  to  all  the  rest  of  humanity.  There  can  be 
no  question  that  our  Lord  felt  himself  to  be  something 
as  man  to  every  man,  the  truth,  righteousness  and  life 
of  all  men.  Why  should  he  bid  us  all :  "  In  the  world 
ye  shall  have  tribulation  :  but  be  of  good  cheer ;  I  have 
overcome  the  world  "  ?  Why  should  all  men  be  bap- 
tized into  him  ?  Why  is  it  the  end  of  every  man  to 
be  not  himself  but  Christ  ?  Why  is  he  nearer  to  every 
man  than  himself — the  inner  man  within  the  outer 
men  that  we  are?  We  have  already  suggested  the 
answer.  Jesus  Christ  not  only  assumed  the  common 
nature  of  us  all  but  is  also  the  common  or  universal 
personality  of  all  of  us.  He  is  the  universal  reason 
or  wisdom,  the  universal  will  or  freedom  and  right- 
eousness, and  so  the  universal  personality  of  every 
finite  person  in  the  world.  The  end  of  man  to  God- 
ward  is  to  become  God  so  far  as  his  nature  qualifies 
and  predestinates  him  to  become  partaker  of  the 
divine  nature  and  life,  and  this  he  has  done  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  not  only  the  Head  but 
the  life  also  of  the  whole  body  of  spiritual  humanity. 
This  we  say  every  man  has  done  so  far  as  he  is  po- 


The  Proper  Deity  of  the  Human  Jesus.  327 

tentially  in  Christ ;  this  every  man  does  so  far  as  he 
realizes  that  he  is  no  longer  himself  but  Christ,  no 
longer  his  individual  and  particular  but  his  universal 
and  divine  self. 

But  if  it  is  the  end  of  man  to  Godward  to  become 
God,  that  is  because  it  is  the  end  of  God  to  manward 
to  become  man.  The  divine  Logos  is  the  Logos  of 
God  and  of  all  things,  not  only  of  man.  But  in  so 
far  as  he  is  the  Logos  of  man,  so  far  as  he  is  that 
which  or  he  who  is  to  be  expressed  in  man,  his  pre- 
destination could  not  have  been  otherwise  fulfilled 
than  in  what  we  know  as  the  incarnation.  The  dif- 
ference between  Jesus  Christ  and  other  men  is  that 
while  he  is  universal  or  divine  humanity  incarnate  in 
a  particular  man,  they  in  him  are  particular  men  who 
have  realized  or  attained  their  universal  and  divine 
manhood  through  him.  Our  Lord  was  a  particular 
man  and  as  such  everything  may  be  predicated  of  him 
that  is  proper  to  man,  more  than  can  be  predicated  of 
any  other  man  because  he  alone  has  realized  all  the 
potentialities  of  manhood.  Our  Lord  was  also  univer- 
sal humanity  and  so  every  human  being  may  predi- 
cate of  himself  and  realize  in  himself  all  that  is  true 
of  him ;  he  may  in  Christ  be  not  himself  but  Christ. 

Why  then  should  we  hesitate  as  the  Adoptionists 
did  to  call  even  the  human  Jesus  not  only  adopted 
but  also  essential  and  proper  Son  of  God?  It  was 
because  in  their  vindication  of  his  particular  manhood 
and  his  adopted  Sonship  they  lost  sight  too  far  of  his 
universal  manhood  and  in  that  of  his  essential  divine 
Sonship.  If  they  had  seen  that  more  clearly  and  fully 
they  would  have  been  more  willing  to  call  even  the 


328  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

human  Christ  proper  as  well  as  adopted  Son  of  God. 
As  against  Nestorians  and  Adoptionists  we  affirm  that 
the  Logos  became  man  and  then  as  man  became  Son 
of  God, — and  that  neither  by  conversion  of  deity  into 
humanity  nor  of  humanity  into  deity.  For  it  was  the 
nature  and  self-fulfilment  of  the  Logos  to  become  man 
and  of  man  through  him  to  become  partaker  of  the 
divine  nature  and  life,  which  is  to  become  son  of  God. 
Each  did  not  cease  to  be  but  truly  became  himself 
through  the  act  of  the  other. 

In  discovering  the  truth  it  is  necessary  to  proceed 
from  outward  facts  to  inward  principles,  but  in  stating 
it  we  may  reverse  the  order,  and  we  have  now  arrived 
at  a  point  where  we  may  sum  up  the  conclusions  of 
the  catholic  doctrine  of  the  person  of  our  Lord,  re- 
viewing it  from  within  outward.  The  Trinitarian 
discussion  terminated  with  the  assertion  of  living 
relations  and  movements  within  the  nature  of  the 
Godhead.  It  affirmed  an  interior  and  essential  func- 
tion of  the  Logos  in  the  personal  life  of  God  himself. 
But  he  who  is  Logos  of  God  is  Logos  of  all  else ;  he 
exerts  a  cosmical  function  as  reason,  will  and  energy 
of  the  whole  creation.  All  things  come  into  being 
through  him ;  and  without  him,  apart  from  or  outside 
of  him,  nothing  is  that  is.  He  is  the  rational  or  ideal 
world  of  which  all  things  are  but  outward  appearances 
or  phenomena.  Whatever  there  is  rational  or  free, 
spiritual  or  moral — in  a  word,  personal — in  the  uni- 
verse is  he.  Whatever  is  not  is  at  least  symbol,  sen- 
sible expression  or  (^aivopevov  of  him.  The  only  thing 
in  the  universe  that  in  its  inner  essence  or  universal 
form  is  not  he  is  the  possible  and  actual  free  activity 


The  Logos  the  True  Personality  of  Men.  329 

of  finite  personal  spirits  that  are  made  to  be  free 
images  of  himself,  of  his  personality,  but  that  are  free 
also  to  distort  and  destroy  that  image.  The  only 
thing  in  the  world  that  is  not  in  a  sense  God  is  sin. 

Further,  the  Logos  of  God  and  the  cosmos  is  the 
Logos  of  man.  That  is  of  man  not  as  mere  product 
and  part  of  nature  but  as  spiritual  and  personal  son 
of  God.  Every  man  who  so  realizes  and  becomes 
himself  does  so  in  him  and  does  so  as  the  result  of  a 
double  act, — an  act  of  the  divine  personality  becoming 
the  man  and  another  of  the  man  becoming  not  him- 
self but  Christ — forsaking  his  particular,  that  is,  for 
his  universal  and  divine  personality.  So  every  man 
is  predestined  to  incarnate  the  Logos  as  the  Logos  to 
incarnate  himself  in  every  man. 

Now  we  must  remember  that  the  incarnation  is  part 
of  a  universal  process.  It  is  the  nature  of  him  who 
is  the  universal  reason  and  principle  of  things  to  be 
the  mediator,  the  bond  of  union  or  element  of  unity 
between  God  and  things.  He  is  God  in  the  universe 
and  the  universe  in  God.  The  universe  in  fulfilling 
him  fulfils  both  God  and  itself.  As  he  was  the  be- 
ginning so  he  is  to  be  the  end  in  which  or  whom  all 
things  will  return  to  God  and  he  and  they  shall  be 
one.  This  however  becomes  plainest  when  we  limit 
it  to  the  incarnation  itself.  The  very  essence  and 
truth  of  the  incarnation  is  its  both-sidedness.  What 
we  might  call  the  generic  incarnation  is  the  whole  act 
in  the  history  and  destination  of  humanity,  as  of  every 
man,  by  which  God  personally  fulfils  himself  in  it  and 
it  fulfils  itself  in  God.  Then  all  men  will  be  Christ, 
will  be  taken  up  into  the  universal  divine  personal 


33O  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

humanity  of  Christ  and  all  will  be  one,  losing  in  in- 
dividual differences  all  they  have  gained  in  personal 
comprehension  and  agreement.  Now  the  meaning 
and  truth  to  be  realized  in  the  generic  incarnation 
must  have  been  realized  in  what  we  might  call  the 
particular  incarnation  of  our  Lord.  We  see  not  yet 
man  but  we  see  Jesus,  exalted  and  crowned  with  glory 
and  honor ;  we  see  the  process  revealed  in  him  which 
is  to  be  realized  in  us.  And  what  is  of  most  conse- 
quence in  what  is  revealed  in  him  is  not  how  God  may 
be  human  but  how  man  may  become  divine.  The 
former  is  God's  part  which  we  may  safely  leave  to 
him,  the  latter  is  ours  and  it  behooves  us  to  know  and 
perform  it.  What  we  need  to  know  is  how  God  in 
leading  many  sons  to  glory  first  made  the  great  hu- 
man captain  and  exemplar  of  our  salvation  perfect 
through  suffering.  We  learn  in  him  "  the  way  "  in 
which  men  become  sons  of  God ;  the  new  and  living 
way  that  he  has  opened  and  consecrated  for  us  through 
the  rent  veil  of  the  flesh  into  the  holy  of  holies  of  the 
spirit.  One  thing  by  true  inner  instinct  the  church 
through  all  the  aberrations  of  its  outward  science  al- 
ways kept  faithfully,  and  that  was  the  general  assertion 
of  the  very  manhood  equally  with  the  very  Godhead 
of  our  Lord.  The  Christological  meaning  and  value 
of  this  is  the  double  truth  of  the  incarnation,  accord- 
ing to  which  on  the  one  hand  God  becomes  man 
without  ceasing  to  be  himself  and  on  the  other  hand 
equally  man  becomes  God  or  one  with  God  without 
in  any  faculty  or  function  ceasing  to  be  himself.  The 
incarnation  being  the  true  and  in  the  higher  sense 
natural  and  predestined  unity  of  God  and  man  must 


The  Kenosis.  331 


necessarily  be  equally  God  graciously  fulfilling  himself 
in  humanity  and  humanity  through  faith,  obedience 
and  self-sacrificing  love  fulfilling  God  in  itself  and 
itself  in  God.  Therefore  in  what  we  have  called  the 
particular  incarnation  we  see  in  our  Lord  first  in  all 
that  it  can  possibly  mean  the  Logos  become  man, 
and  secondly  a  man  who  in  the  way  of  man  and  as 
the  very  truth  and  revelation  of  the  way  of  man  be- 
comes God  or  Son  of  God.  With  regard  to  this  man 
we  can  only  repeat  what  we  have  said  of  him,  that 
he  in  no  wise  differs  from  other  men  save  that  he  is 
the  universal  and  the  divine  become  particular  and 
human  while  we  who  are  particular  and  human  be- 
come in  him  universal  and  divine,  or  in  other  words 
he  is  primarily  divine  and  secondarily  human  while 
we  are  primarily  human  and  secondarily  and  only  in 
him  divine.  He  is  both  proper  and  adopted  Son  of 
God  while  we  are  only  adopted  and  not  proper  sons 
of  God. 

It  will  help  us  in  following  out  the  bearings  and 
consequences  of  the  incarnation  to  remember  that 
when  we  speak  or  think  of  it  as  a  self-emptying, 
contracting  or  humbling  of  the  Godhead,  we  are 
thinking  of  God  only  in  his  physical,  not  his  spiritual, 
moral  and  truly  personal  qualities.  God  like  man 
and  man  like  God  is  greatest  and  most  himself  as  love. 
All  his  natural  or  physical  properties,  as  his  omnis- 
cience or  his  omnipotence,  are  but  the  servants  of 
that  central  quality  which  is  himself.  Our  human 
Lord  was  greatest  and  most  himself  when  in  weak- 
ness and  shame  he  was  led  as  a  sheep  to  the  slaughter 
and,  as  a  lamb  before  her  shearers  is  dumb,  opened 


332  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 


not  his  mouth.  And  God  in  all  his  relations  to  us 
in  this  infinite  universe  of  wisdom  and  power  is  most 
God,  most  divine  and  most  great  in  the  mystery  of 
his  grace  toward  us  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  incarnation  and  the  cross  are  God  not  at  his 
lowest  but  at  his  highest. 

Again  we  need  to  remember  that  the  incarnation 
is  an  incarnation  not  of  the  physical  properties  but 
of  the  spiritual,  moral  and  strictly  personal  qualities 
of  God.  It  is  God  in  man  in  the  sense  and  manner 
in  which  it  was  the  nature  of  God  and  man  to  be  one 
in  the  other.  It  was  not  the  nature  of  man  to  share 
the  natural  or  physical  but  only  the  spiritual  and 
personal  qualities  of  God.  "  Be  ye  perfect  as  your 
Father  in  heaven  is  perfect "  does  not  mean,  be  om- 
niscient or  omnipotent.  It  means,  love  as  God,  give 
and  forgive  as  God,  die  for  one  another  as  God  has 
died  for  you,  have  the  character  and  live  the  life  of 
God,  be  your  divine  and  not  your  earthly,  sensual, 
devilish  self.  When  our  Lord  said  "  He  that  hath 
seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father  "  he  did  not  mean  that 
we  had  seen  in  him  the  divine  omnipotence  or  omnis- 
cience. We  saw  something  better  and  higher  than 
that,  even  the  divine  love  that  is  not  any  property  of 
God  but  God  himself,  and  that  we  saw  raised  to  its 
highest  power  in  the  incarnation  and  the  cross.  That 
can  be  in  man  and  was  in  man  and  only  makes  him 
infinitely  more  man.  But  omniscience  or  omnipotence 
cannot  be  in  him  and  he  remain  man.  All  the  per- 
sonal, spiritual,  moral  qualities  can  incarnate  them- 
selves but  the  physical  or  natural  properties  of  God 
cannot  be  incarnate  because  it  is  not  the  nature  or 


Incarnation  Spiritual  not  Physical.     333 

within  the  potentiality  of  man  to  contain  or  possess 
them.  An  omnipotent  or  omniscient  man  is  an  im- 
possibility. The  spirit,  character  and  life  of  God  in 
us  will  indeed  expand  indefinitely  our  human  faculty 
for  knowledge  and  our  human  power  of  action  but 
they  will  always  remain  human.  It  is  not  that  in  us 
which  becomes  divine  in  Christ.  What  does  so  be- 
come is  our  spiritual  and  personal  qualities,  not  our 
physical  or  natural  properties.  And  vice  versa  what 
of  God  becomes  human  in  us  is  his  spiritual,  not  his 
physical  attributes,  his  love,  not  his  knowledge  or  his 
power. 

If  Jesus  Christ  then  is  what  we  might  call  the  nat- 
ural truth  of  the  incarnation,  we  see  God  in  him 
spiritually  and  not  physically.  His  love  is  God,  his 
holiness  is  God,  his  character  and  life  are  God,  but 
then  they  are  all  equally  man.  Just  those  things 
were  incarnate  in  him  that  could  become  man,  not 
those  that  could  not.  The  Logos  was  incarnate  in 
him  just  in  the  way  and  to  the  extent  in  which  it  was 
the  nature  and  the  purpose  of  the  Logos  to  be  incar- 
nate in  man.  It  is  absurd  therefore  to  speak  of  the 
omniscience  or  omnipotence  of  our  incarnate  Lord  as 
though  they  were  a  part  of  the  incarnation.  Even 
now  in  his  ascended  and  exalted  humanity,  however 
our  Lord  might  and  does  "  share  in  "  the  omniscience 
and  omnipotence  of  the  Logos,  he  is  not  humanly 
omniscient  or  omnipotent,  and  he  certainly  was  not 
so  on  earth  before  the  completion  and  exaltation  of 
his  human  faculties  and  powers. 

With  regard  to  the  modes  in  which  Christian 
thought  has  tried  to  conceive  and  represent  the  "  be- 


334  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

coming-man  "  of  God,  those  are  without  question  to 
be  finally  rejected  which  are  based  upon  the  principle 
of  an  absolute  self-depotentiation  of  the  Logos.  It 
is  impossible  to  entertain  the  idea  of  any  suspension 
of  those  functions  of  the  eternal  second  person  of  the 
Trinity  which  are  a  part  of  the  internal  and  essential 
life  of  God.  It  is  equally  impossible  to  think  of  any 
interruption  of  the  cosmic  functions  of  the  eternal 
reason,  will  and  energy  of  the  universe.  Yet  we  may 
and  must  think  of  that  same  mind,  will  and  heart  of 
God  made  flesh  in  Christ,  crucified  for  us  upon  Cal- 
vary, and  become  the  inner  personality  and  divine 
self  of  every  man  who  can  say  "Not  I  but  he!" 
Since  the  revelation  and  experience  of  that  truth  in 
the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  the  human  soul  can  never 
again  be  satisfied  with  anything  less  either  for  itself 
or  from  God.  His  nature  as  well  as  ours  requires 
that  it  should  complete  itself,  at  least  to  usward,  in 
that  lowest  act  which  is  also  its  highest.  God  like  us 
only  truly  finds  himself  as  he  has  truly  lost  himself 
in  love.  It  is  he  then  who  is  in  God  and  is  God, 
who  is  in  the  cosmos  and  is  its  living  principle  and 
essential  life,  who  is  also  our  incarnate  Lord.  He  is 
one  and  the  same  in  all,  and  yet  assuredly  the  Logos 
in  the  man  and  humanity  is  not  the  Logos  as  he  is  in 
God  or  the  cosmos.  Neither  does  he  in  his  incarna- 
tion discharge  those  larger  functions  nor  does  his  in- 
carnation suspend  or  interrupt  them.  We  can  only 
say  that  he  so  far  only  incarnates  himself  or  becomes 
man  as  it  is  the  meaning  and  end  of  the  incarnation 
that  he  should  do  so.  And  it  would  not  only  be  an 
impossibility  and  a  contradiction  in  itself  but  would 


Theory  of  S elf- depot entiation.         335 

wholly  annul  the  whole  truth  and  value  of  the  incar- 
nation if  the  deity  of  our  Lord  should  import  into  the 
human  faculties  and  functions  of  his  manhood  natural 
properties  and  powers  which  not  only  do  not  belong 
to  it  but  which  would  neutralize  it  or  convert  it  into 
something  else.  God  can  spiritually  and  ethically 
become  man  and  thereby  only  fulfil  and  exalt  the 
manhood  because  the  spiritual  and  ethical  nature  of 
God  and  man  are  the  same ;  man  as  well  as  God  is 
essentially  spirit,  truth  and  love.  But  God  cannot 
physically  become  man  or  man  God  because  the 
physical  properties  and  characteristics  of  deity  and 
humanity  are  inconvertible.  Therefore  we  say  that 
in  all  spiritual  qualities,  faculties  and  functions  the 
Logos  was  so  man  that  the  man  was  also  the  Logos. 
It  was  the  nature  and  distinction  of  the  Logos,  hisfunc- 
tion  to  manward,  to  be  the  universal  personal  truth  of 
every  man  as  every  man  is  the  particular  personal 
truth  or  image  of  him.  But  the  physical  natures, 
properties  and  functions  of  our  Lord  remain  forever 
two.  Omniscience  and  omnipotence  no  more  pertain 
to  him  as  man  than  bodily  parts  and  functions  belong 
to  him  as  God.  They  may  be  intimately  conjoined, 
now  especially  in  our  Lord's  exaltation  the  humanity 
may  in  him  in  some  way  above  our  comprehension 
"  share  "  the  omniscience,  omnipotence  and  even  om- 
nipresence of  his  deity.  But  the  human  Jesus  was 
man;  no  man  saw  God  in  him  save  as  Godhead  may 
be  expressed  in  manhood,  as  God  and  man  are  capable 
of  being  one.  He  loved  as  God;  so  far  as  his  death 
was  the  act  of  his  love  he  died  as  God;  but  he  ate, 
slept,  walked  as  man  and  so  far  as  his  knowledge  was 


336  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

natural  knowledge  and  his  acts  produced  physical 
effects  he  knew  as  man  and  acted  as  man.  That  does 
not  mean  that  he  had  not  supernatural  knowledge 
and  did  not  work  miracles  but  that  even  in  these  he 
was  man  and  both  knew  and  worked  as  man.  And 
he  himself  affirms,  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He 
that  believeth  on  me,  the  works  that  I  do  shall  he 
do  also,  and  greater  works  than  these  shall  he  do." 
It  may  not  be  possible  for  us  to  explain  how  the  omnis- 
cient, omnipotent  and  omnipresent  Logos  entered 
personally  into  humanity  without  bringing  with  him 
into  it  all  these  properties  but  we  have  not  to  give  a 
natural  explanation  of  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation. 
To  say  that  the  Logos  became  man  is  in  itself  to  say 
that  the  Infinite  entered  into  limitations.  Omnis- 
cience, omnipotence  and  omnipresence  cannot  so,enter 
but  Love  can.  They  would  be  diminished  and  anni- 
hilated by  it  but  he  is  only  magnified  and  fulfilled  by 
it.  Whatever  self-emptyings  or  humiliations  were 
involved  in  the  incarnation  we  know  only  enough 
about  them  to  know  that  they  are  to  the  greatness 
and  glory  of  that  in  God  which  makes  him  most  him- 
self. Our  incarnate  Lord  is  personal  God,  personal 
love,  personal  holiness,  truth  and  life.  It  is  not  only 
that  he  has  shared  our  nature  and  imparts  his  to  us; 
he  takes  not  ours  but  ourselves  and  gives  us  himself, 
not  merely  his.  St.  Paul  does  not  say  "  Not  my  na- 
ture but  Christ's  "  but  "  Not  I  but  Christ ! "  In  every 
man  the  eternal  Logos  finds  and  becomes  himself,  as 
every  man  for  the  first  time  truly  finds  and  becomes 
himself  in  him. 

With  regard  to  the  other  theory  which  discarding 


Theory  of  Progressive  Incarnation.    337 

the  notion  of  an  absolute  self-depotentiation  of  the 
Logos  or  of  any  limitation  or  contraction  in  himself 
holds  to  ajrraduaLQr_prQgressive  incarnation  or_s.ejf- 
communication  of  the  Logos  to  humanity,  this  much 
in  it  at  least  may  win  our  sympathy  and  interest.  In 
the  first  place  its  motive  is  to  provide  for  what  is  an 
indispensable  necessity  to  the  truth  and  purpose  of 
the  incarnation,  a  true  human  development  in  every 
respect  of  our  Lord's  humanity  from  its  conception 
to  its  exaltation.  But  secondly  and  even  more  its 
aim  is  to  provide  for  a  spiritual  and  moral  in  distinc- 
tion from  a  merely  physical  and  necessary  incarnation. 
The  Logos  is  incarnate  in  the  whole  Christ  and  pre- 
eminently in  a  human  spirit  and  .life  and  not  merely 
a  human  flesh  or  nature.  The  character  of  Jesus,  the 
fact  of  his  human  holiness  from  sin  and  human  life 
out  of  death,  is  infinitely  more  the  incarnation  than 
the  actuality  of  his  natural  flesh  and  blood.  In  fact 
his  natural  manhood  is  only  the  condition,  not  the 
essence  or  reality  of  the  incarnation.  He  became 
man  oapK.1,  in  the  flesh,  in  order  that  he  might  as  man 
become  the  incarnation  of  God  -nviv\i(i-it  in  the  spirit. 
In  a  word  it  is  spiritual  and  not  natural  manhood  in 
Jesus  Christ  that  is  the  true  and  completed  incarnation. 
However  difficult  it  is  for  us  to  conceive  or  represent 
both  sides  of  such  a  double  truth,  it  is  necessary,  lor 
us  to  see  in  our  Lord  not  only  the  Logos  personally 
present  and  expressed  in  manhood  but  also  a  man- 
hood which  by  the  spiritual  and  personal  act  of  i£s 
whole  life  incarnates  and  expresses  the  Logos.  This 
requires  an  extension  of  the  act  of  incarnation  over 
the  whole  human  life  of  our  Lord  and  makes  only  the 


338  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

resurrection  and  ascension  the  completion  and  con- 
summation of  it. 

The  general  result  of  the  foregoing  reflections  is  to 
bring  us  to  the  following  conclusion  with  regard  to 
the  unity  of  our  Lords  person  in  the  duality  of  his 
divine  and  human  natures.  To  begin  with  we  must 
discriminate  between  physical  and  spiritual  natures 
both  in  God  and  ourselves.  In  spiritual  or  personal 
nature  there  is  no  essential  difference  or  mutual  ex- 
clusion between  God  and  man.  The  same  love  that 
is  the  nature  of  God  is  the  nature  of  man;  the  divine 
reason,  will  and  character  may  become  ours  also  and 
must  become  ours  if  we  are  truly  to  become  ourselves. 
He  is  our  only  holiness,  righteousness  and  life. 

Yet  while  there  is  no  spiritual  difference  in  kind 
there  is  an  infinite  physical  or  natural  difference  be- 
tween God  and  us  that  can  never  be  transcended. 
The  physical  or  natural  properties  and  qualities  of 
God  can  never  become  man's  or  those  of  man  God's. 
In  the  nature  of  things  the  Logos  cannot  cease  to  be 
nor  can  humanity  become  omnipresent,  omnipotent 
or  omniscient.  Our  incarnate  Lord  then  is  personal 
Godhead  and  personal  manhood  in  the  unity  and 
totality  of  that  spiritual  nature  in  which  it  is  their 
constitution  and  predestination  to  become  one.  But 
physically  or  naturally  Godhead  and  manhood  do  not 
become  one  and  the  same  in  him.  The  Logos  remains 
omnipresent,  omnipotent  and  omniscient,  the  man- 
hood never  acquires  any  of  these  divine  properties. 
Even  now  in  his  exaltation  our  Lord  as  human  in 
some  ineffable  way  may  and  must  "  share  "  or  "  par- 
ticipate in  "  the  omnipresence  and  omniscience  of  the 


Soteriology  Dependent  on  Christology.    339 

Logos  but  he  is  not  humanly  omnipresent  or  omnis- 
cient. And  the  time  is  past  when  we  can  ascribe  to 
the  humanly  developing  and  incomplete  manhood  of 
our  Lord  on  earth  any  act  of  immediate  and  non- 
human  omnipotence  or  omniscience.  Though  the 
catholic  doctors  did  not  always  mean  it,  the  catholic 
doctrjrie_of  the  distinctness  of  the  natures  in  the  unity 
of  the  person  meant  that  the  physical  properties  of 
one  nature  did  not  pass  over  into  the  other  nature. 
Against  this  fundamental  truth  the  great  Leo  himself 
and  many  able  theologians  then  and  now  offend  when 
they  represent  the  human  Jesus  as  now  manifesting 
the  properties  of  man  and  now  those  of  God.  On 
the  contrary  what  consciousness  our  Lord  more  and 
more  acquired  of  even  his  own  higher  and  eternal 
nature  and  preexistence  came  to  him  humanly  through 
his  own  spiritual  intuitions  and  revelations  to  him  from 
the  Father,  as  in  a  lower  way  we  come  to  know  our 
sonship  to  God  partly  through  instinct  born  of  the 
fact  that  we  are  sons  and  partly  through  self-revela- 
tions to  us  from  God.  Our  interest  in  this  view  is 
only  secondarily  that  from  a  scientific  point  of  view 
it  is  the  true  and  only  possible  one.  It  is  very  much 
more  that  from  the  religious  point  of  view  it  is  the 
only  one  that  is  consistent  with  a  true  incarnation 
and  with  a  true  view  of  the  meaning,  operation  and 
results  of  the  incarnation.  In  no  other  way  does  God 
really  fulfil  himself  in  man  and  man  in  God,  as  is  first 
the  case  for  us  in  the  divine  and  the  human  person 
of  our  Lord. 

The  most  serious  criticism  of  the  practically  pre- 
dominant tendency  of  patristic  and  still  more  of  later 


340  The  Ecumenical  Councils. 

Christological  thought  is  that  a  one-sided  view  of  our 
Lord's  person  led  to  a  much  more  one-sided  view  of 
his  work.  A  Christology  in  which  the  human  is  un- 
duly subordinated  to  the  divine  leads  to  a  soteriology 
in  which  the  human  part  is  still  more  unduly  lost  in 
the  divine.  In  the  dominant  theology  every  distinc- 
tive term  descriptive  of  human  salvation  has  come  to 
be  interpreted  almost  wholly  as  an  act  of  God  and 
hardly  at  all  as  an  act  even  in  man,  much  less  of  man. 
Thus  for  example  with  regard  to  the  acts  which  we 
designate  atonement  and  redemption  it  might  almost 
be  said  that  if  God  could  in  himself  and  without  be- 
coming man  at  all  have  died  instead  of  men  it  would 
have  answered  all  the  purposes  of  the  popular  theol- 
ogy as  an  expiation  from  the  guilt  and  a  deliverance 
from  the  penalty  of  our  sins.  The  human  nature  was 
only  assumed  as  that  in  which  it  should  be  possible 
for  God  so  to  suffer  for  or  instead  of  us.  Or  at  the 
most,  from  that  point  of  view,  it  would  be  that  the 
Godhead  became  incarnate  in  the  likeness  of  our  sinful 
flesh  in  order  that  there  might  be  the  likeness  of.  a 
condemnation  of  sin  in  the  flesh,  or  in  other  words  a 
representation  of  man's  dying  for  and  from  his  sins 
and  being  made  alive  to  God.  Of  course  atonement 
and  redemption  are  acts  of  God  but  they  are  real  for 
us  only  as  they  are  acts  performed  in  man  and  not 
outside  of  him.  If  the  essence  of  the  atonement  is 
found  where  it  lies,  in  the  fact  that  humanity  taken 
into  God  itself  dies  to  and  from  the  sin  that  separates 
it  from  him  and  lives  in  the  holiness  in  which  it  is  one 
with  him,  we  shall  see  at  once  that  the  atonement 
could  not  have  been  an  act  of  God  performed  for 


The  Sum  of  Spiritual  Science        341 

humanity  externally  because  it  is  essentially  an  act 
performed  for  humanity  internally.  God's  atonement 
is  our  reconciliation  and  reunion  with  him ;  his  re- 
demption is  our  freedom  from  sin  and  death.  The 
atonement  was  accomplished  when  humanity  in  Jesus 
Christ  was  made  one  with  God  by  the  spiritual  and 
moral  act  of  the  cross ;  the  redemption  was  finished 
when  in  him  men  overcame  sin  and  destroyed  death. 
The  whole  spiritual  science  of  the  New  Testament  is 
to  show  us  in  Jesus  Christ  how  the  divine  humanity 
was  realized  for  us  and  is  to  be  realized  in  and  by  us. 
Our  Lord  himself  expressed  it  in  that  one  word,  the 
cross ;  the  cross  which  is  the  eternal  symbol  of  self- 
sacrificing  love ;  love,  in  which  God  lost  and  found 
himself  in  us  and  in  which  we  lose  and  find  ourselves 
in  God. 


INDEX. 


Acacius  of  Beroea,  230,  231. 

Acacius  of  Constantinople,  272, 
excommunicated,  272,  273. 

Adoptionism,  60,  rejection,  68, 
301  sq.,  New  Testament  basis, 
306  sq.,  truth,  310,  limitations, 
312  sq.,  similarity  to  Nestorian- 
ism,  313,  314,  catholic  view, 
314  sq.,  326  sq.,  error  recapitu- 
lated, 325  sq. 

"  Alans,"  62,  70. 

Aetius,  159. 

Agatho,  297. 

Alcuin,  314. 

Alexander,  bishop  of  Alexandria, 
59>  91*  95»  letter  from  Con- 
stantine,  in,  116,  117,  at 
Nicsea,  124,  141,  death,  151. 

Alexander  of  Hierapolis,  232, 
imperial  pressure,  238. 

Alexandria,  in  early  centuries,  60 
sq.  See  Greek  Thought. 

Alexandria,  Council  of,  under 
Athanasius,  157. 

Alexandria,  school  of,  stand  for 
divinity  of  Christ,  192,  198,  202, 
217;  support  of  Rome,  246. 

Alexandria,  see  of,  letter  from 
Constantine,  133. 

"All,    always,    everywhere,"   44, 

45- 

Anastasius,  213. 
Anastasius,  Emperor,  273- 
Anatolius,  250. 
Anomceans,  159. 
"Anthropotocos,"  211. 
Antioch,  Council  of,  repudiates  use 


of   word   "homoousion,"   144, 

153.  154- 
Antioch,  Council  of,  under  John, 

229. 

Antioch,  patriarchate,  95. 
Antioch,  school  of,  58,  116,  stand 

for  human  aspect  of  Christ,  192, 

202  sq.,  217,  against  Cyril,  227 

sq.,  231  sq.,  235  sq. 
Antioch,  synods  of,  condemn  Ebi- 

onism,  57. 
Apollinaris,   Apollinarianism,   66, 

67,  rejected,   68,  69,    177,    180 
sq.,  Docetism,  188  sq.,  catholic 
view,  per  contra,  189  sq.,  rela- 
tions to  Arianism  and  Nestorian- 
ism,  192,  201,  opposes  dualism, 
193,    catholic  view,    194,    fore- 
runner of  Monophysitism,  195. 

Arians,  Arianism,  58,  connection 
with  Samosatenism,  59,  with  Nes- 
torianism,  59,  60,  condemned, 

68,  70 ;   difference  from  other 
heresies,  90,  91,  not  Christolog- 
ical    but    theological,    95    sq., 
tenets,  96  sq.,  true  value  nega- 
tive, loo,  catholic  doctrine,  100 
sq., relations  to  Constantine,  105, 
relations    of    conservatives    to, 
141,  142,  after  Nicene  Council, 
148  sq.,  charges  against  Atha- 
nasius, 151,  under  Constantius, 
etc.,  153  sq.,  character  of  doc- 
trine, 158  sq.,  168,  dissolution, 
171  sq.,  expulsion  under  Nes- 
torius,  213. 

Ariminum,  Council  of,  156, 


343 


344 


Index. 


Aristotle,  definition  of  "  rational," 

34- 

Arius,  58,  91,  95,  letter  to  Euse- 
bius,  96,  position,  96  sq.,  letter 
from  Cons tantine,  III,  116,  re- 
lations to  Constantine,  112,  his 
following,  119,  at  Nicsea,  119, 
1 20,  contrasted  with  Athana- 
sius,  124,  character,  125,  ban- 
ished, 132,  restored,  150,  pro- 
nounced orthodox,  152,  death, 

152.  See  Arians. 

Aries,  Council  of,  112,  114,  155. 

Artemas,  59. 

Artemon,  56,  57,  71,  91. 

"  Aseity,"  102,  299. 

Athanasius,  92,  95,  relation  to 
Constantine,  112,  115,  life  and 
character,  123  sq.,  regrets  ne- 
cessity of  definitions,  129,  argu- 
ment at  Nicsea,  131  sq.,  after 
Nicsea,  139  sq.,  vs.  Eusebius, 
142,  disobeys  summons  of  em- 
peror, 142,  estimate  of  homo- 
ousion,  145  sq.,  attacks  of 
Arians,  149,  150,  banished, 
150,  152,  succeeds  to  patri- 
archate of  Alexandria,  151, 
charges  against,  151 ;  in  various 
councils,  152,  restored  to  see, 

153,  second   banishment,    153, 
declared  innocent  at  Rome,  1 54, 
at    Sardica,    154;    return,    155, 
condemnation     at     Aries      and 
Milan,  155,  romance  of  career, 
156,  banished   by  Julian,    157, 
restored  by  Jovian,  157,  Coun- 
cil of  Alexandria,    157,    subse- 
quent life,    158,  policy   toward 
Semi-Arians,  159,  160,   at  Sec- 
ond General  Council,   163  sq., 
teaches  "natural  unity  "  of  di- 
vine and  human  in  Christ,  196, 
silence  in  regard  to  analysis  of 
Christ's  humanity,  204. 

Atonement,  37,  according  to  Cyril, 
237,  true  view,  294,  325,  340, 
341- 

Attila,  248. 


Augustine,  114,  176. 
Aurelius,  Marcus,  5. 

Baptism,  166. 

Basil,  163,  164,  173,  quoted,   175, 

176. 
"  Begotten,"  103,  104. 

Callistus,  71. 

Canon  of  Scripture,  25-27. 

Carthage,  12. 

Catholic  truth,  40  sq.,  in  infant 
church,  48,  49.  See  Church. 

Celestine,  220,  221,  231. 

Chalcedon,  Council  of.  See  Fourth 
General  Council. 

Chalcedonian  Decrees,  253,  255 ; 
confirmed,  270. 

Christ,  the  Logos  of  all  creation, 
83,  universality  of  his  human- 
ity, 82  sq.  See  Apollinaris, 
Christology. 

Christianity,  what  it  is,  26,  double 
problem  involved,  30  sq.,  full 
claim  concerning  Christ,  35  sq., 
vs.  Gnosticism,  62  sq.,  averse 
to  speculation,  79,  state  reli- 
gion, 134  sq.,  course  between 
Arianism  and  Sabellianism,  1 68 
sq.,  essential  principle,  172, 
two  aspects,  199.  See  Chris- 
tology. 

Christology,  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, I  sq.,  moral  and  religious 
ideal  primarily  in  Christ,  not  in 
his  teaching,  5,  6,  Christ  more 
than  ideal  of  humanity,  7,  8,  1 1 
sq.,  his  relation  to  Old  Testa- 
ment, 8  sq.,  agreement  of  syn- 
optics with  St.  John,  14,  15,  22 
sq.,  complete  union  of  divine 
and  human,  15  sq.,  depth  of 
question,  69  sq.,  universality  of 
his  humanity,  82,  the  Logos  of 
all  creation,  83,  after  Nicean 
Council,  124  sq.,  180  sq.,  full 
doctrine  regarding  Christ's  hu- 
manity, 182  sq.,  relation  of  Nes- 
torianism  to,  202  sq.,  "Tome 


Index. 


345 


of  St.  Leo,"  260  sq.,  goal,  320 
sq.,  general  defects  of  early, 
summed  up,  322  sq.,  true  in- 
ductive method,  322,  full  doc- 
trine as  against  Adoptionism, 
314  sq.,  summary,  326  sq.,  338 
sq.  See  Adoptionism,  Antioch, 
Apollinarianism,  Christianity, 
Councils,  Cyril,  Docetism,  Ebi- 
onism,  Logos,  Monophysitism, 
Monothelitism,  Nestorianism, 
etc. 

"Christotocos,"  211. 

Chrysaphius,  243,  245,  249. 

Chrysostom,  210,  deacon,  211, 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  211, 
characteristics,  212,  exile,  212, 

215- 

Church,  catholic,  18,  22,  24,  28, 
birthday,  31,  authority,  32,  in- 
terpretation of  Scriptures, 40  sq. , 
relation  to  councils,  45,  46,  first 
Trinitarian,  77  sq.  See  Adop- 
tionism, Apollinarianism,  Arian- 
ism,  Dualism,  Logos,  etc. 

Clement   of   Alexandria,    28,    79, 

202. 

Conservatives,  after  Nicean  Coun- 
cil, 141  sq. 

Constans,  153-155,  293. 

Constantia,  149. 

Constantine,  character,  105  sq., 
letter  to  Alexander  and  Arius, 
in,  1 1 6,  Council  of  Aries,  112, 
of  Nicasa,  112,  116  sq.,  relations 
to  Arius,  112,  to  Athanasius 
and  Eusebius,  113,  calls  Nicean 
Council,  114,  proposes  "  homo- 
ousion,"  126,  writes  to  Alex- 
andria, 133,  after  Nicean  Coun- 
cil, 138,  affected  by  Eusebius, 
etc.,  149,  associated  with  Arians, 
150  sq.,  death,  153. 

Constantine  II.,  153,  154. 

Constantine  Pogonatus,  297,  298. 

Constantinople,  councils  of.  See 
Councils. 

Constantius,  109,  153,  155,  156, 
death,  156. 


Cosmology,  and  Cosmogony,  61, 
62,  167. 

Council,  First  General,  Ebionism 
condemned,  68,  80;  charge 
against  Arius,  98,  109,  112, 
called  by  Constantine,  114, 
work,  114  sq.,  creed  of  con- 
servatives, 121,  of  Nicaea,  127 
sq.,  result  of  council,  132,  rela- 
tion to  church,  135  sq.,  peculiar 
value,  135,  reaction,  138. 

Council,  Second  General,  con- 
demns Apollinarianism,  67,  Do- 
cetism, 68,  162  sq.,  value,  170 
sq.,  177,  canon  regarding  ranks 
of  bishops  of  Constantinople 
and  Rome,  179,  265. 

Council,  Third  General,  Ebionism 
condemned,  68,  issue,  214,  at 
Ephesus,  223  sq.,  briberies, 
224,  confusion,  228. 

Council,  Fourth  General,  Ebion- 
ism condemned,  67,  232,  235, 
251  sq.,  value,  252  sq.,  Chalce- 
donian  decree,  255,  result,  255, 
effects  disappointing,  256  sq., 
Rome  vs.  Constantinople,  266. 

Council,  Fifth  General,  Ebionism 
condemned,  68,  271,  274,  275, 
277,  278. 

Council,  Sixth  General,  Docetism 
condemned,  68,  262,  Dorner's 
view,  288,  why  catholic,  289, 
297  sq. 

Councils,  Alexandria,  157.  Anti- 
och, see  Antioch.  Ariminum, 
156.  Aries,  see  Aries.  Caesarea, 
150,  152.  Chalcedon,  see  Coun- 
cil, Fourth  General.  Ephesus, 
see  Council,  Third  General. 
Ephesus,  under  Dioscorus,  245, 
247,248.  Frankfort,  319.  Jeru- 
salem, 150,  152.  Lateran,  293. 
Milan,  155.  Nicene,  see  Coun- 
cil, First  General.  Philippopolis, 
154.  Rimini,  156.  Robber,  245, 
247,248.  Rome,  154.  Sardica, 
see  Sardica.  Tarsus,  229.  Tyre, 
ISO,  152. 


346 


Index. 


Councils,    Constantinople,    First,  ; 
see  Council,     Second  General.  • 
Third,  see  Council,  Sixth  Gen-  j 
eral.     Conservative,    150,    152. 
Local  (A.U.  448),  242,  245. 

Councils,  the  one  primary  ques- 
tion at  issue,  I  sq.,  accident, 
not  essence,  45,  imperial  pres- 
sure, 80,  127. 

Creed,  of  conservatives  at  Nicaca, 
121, opposition,  122,  i23,Nicean, 
127,  expansion  of,  at  Constan- 
tinople, 163  sq.,  exact  nature, 
1 77  soi- » indorsed  by  Antiochians, 
229. 

Crispus,  106. 

Cyril,  215  sq.,  218,  treatise,  219,  j 
issue  with  Nestorius,  219,  220,  j 
correspondence  with  Celestine,  ] 
221,  letter   to   Nestorius,  222,  j 
lack  of   caution,  222,   227,  ad-  : 
vantage   over    Nestorius,    223, 
deposed   by   Antiochians,   228, 
vindication,    229,  reconciliation 
with  John,   230,   Christological  I 
position,    233    sq.,    faults,   235 
sq.,  attacks  works  of  Theodore, 

239,  death  and  character,  239,  ! 

240,  contributions  to  doctrine,  [ 
240,  synodical   letters  received 
at  Chalcedon,  253. 

Cyrus   of  Alexandria,   291,   292,  : 
298. 

Decrees,  Chalcedonian,  253,  255, 
confirmed,  270. 

Deism,  167. 

Diodorns  of  Tarsus,  192,  203,  211, 
212. 

Dionysius,  289. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  92,  re- 
lations to  Arians,  93. 

Dioscorus,  243  sq.,  president  of 
Robber  Council,  245,  folly,  247, 
opposition  of  Leo,  248,  excom- 
municates Leo,  250,  at  Chal- 
cedon, 251,  overthrow,  252. 

Docetism,  60,  63  sq.,  rejected,  68, 
95,  pantheism  of,  168,  of 


Apollinaris,  i88sq.,  new  forms, 
256,  258. 

Domnus,  297. 

Donatists,  112,  118. 

Dorner,  quoted,  137,  197,  254, 
256,  287,  294,  299,  302. 

Dualism,  70,  opposed  by  Apol- 
linaris, 193,  catholic  view, 
194. 

Easter,  116,  133. 

Ebion,  54,  59.     See  Ebionism. 

Ebionism,  50,  54  sq.,  condemned, 
68,  70,  not  speculative,  79, 
source  of  Arianism,  91,  104, 
outcome  of  wrong  use  of  "homo- 
ousion,"  145,  deism,  168,  new 
forms,  256,  258. 

Ebionitic  Monarchianism,  70.  See 
Ebionism. 

Ecumenical.     See  Council. 

Elipandus,  302. 

Elustathius  of  Antioch,  117. 

"  Ei>£/>y«a,"  279,  284. 

"  EV6X7if,"2l8. 

Ephesus,  Council  of.  See  Coun- 
cil, Third  General. 

Ephesus,  Council  of,  under  Dios- 
corus, 245,  247,  248. 

Epictetus,  5. 

Essence.     See"Ousia." 

Eternal  generation,  101,  104. 

Eunomius,  Eunomians,  159. 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  115,117-120, 
creed,  121,  126,  character,  142, 
vs.  Athanasius,  142,  relations 
to  Constantine,  149. 

Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum,  242,  245, 
252. 

Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  96,  113, 
119,  120,  relations  to  Constan- 
tine, 149,  150,  translated  to 
Constantinople,  153,  156. 

Eustathius,  150. 

Eustathius  of  Antioch,  117. 

Eutyches,  Eutychianism,  67,  re- 
jected, 68,  242,  condemned,  243, 
253  sq.,  decision  reversed,  245, 
appeal  to  Leo,  246,  condemned 


Index. 


347 


and  excommunicated  at  Chalce- 
don,  252. 

Fathers,  early,  29. 

Felix  of  Urgellis,  303. 

Felix  III.,  272. 

Flavian,  242,  243,  245,  246,  letter 

from  Leo,  247.  , 
Frankfort,  Council  of,  319. 
Fulgentius  Ferrandus,  276. 

Gens  eric,  249. 

George  of  Cappadocia,  153,  156. 

Gnosticism,  62,  63,  70. 

God,  knowledge  of,  32  sq. 

Golden  Church,  153. 

Gospel,  primitive,  10  sq. 

Greek  thought  and  theology,  con- 
trast with  Latin,  60,  tendency, 
64,  criticism  of,  322,  323. 

Gregory  of  Cappadocia,  155. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus,   163,   164, 

173.  176- 

Gregory  of  Neo-Csesarea,  92. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  163,  164,  173. 

"  Henoticon,"  272. 

Heraclius,  290,  292. 

"  Heteroousion,"  159. 

Hilary,  Pope,  248. 

Hilary  of  Poictiers,   163,  quoted, 

174. 

Holy  Ghost,  178. 
"  Homoiousion,"  147,  157,  160. 
"  Homoousion,"  92, 1 18,  proposed 

by  Constantine,  126,    128,  129, 

130,  140,  objections  to,  143  sq., 

estimate  of  Athanasius,  145  sq., 

163,  Six  Articles,  234. 
Honorius,  292,  opposed  to  Chal- 

cedon,  293,  condemned  by  Sixth 

General  Council,  299. 
Hormisidas,  274. 
Hosius,  of  Cordova,  116,  117,  118, 

126,  156. 
"  Humanitarianism,"    revival    of 

Ebionism,  60. 
Hypatia,  216. 
Hypostasis,   146,  164,  165,  defect 


in  Leo's  teaching,  257 sq. ;  268, 
3°3,  304- 

Ibas,  works  anathematized  by  Jus- 
tinian, 275,  277. 

Immanence,  73,  74. 

Incarnation,  31,  37,  difficulties,  86 
sq.,  position  taken  at  Fourth 
General  Council,  255,  Tome  of 
St.  Leo,  260  sq.,  part  of  a  uni- 
versal process,  329,  not  phys- 
ical but  spiritual,  332.  See 
Antioch,Apollinarianism,Chris- 
tology,  Cyril,  Logos,  Nestori- 

anism,  etc. 
i  .       : 

Inspiration,  32,  39,  40. 

Irenseus,  29,  79,  196,  217. 

I 

Janet,  quoted,  316. 
Jerome,   summary  of   Council   of 

Rimini,   156. 
Jerusalem,  church  of,  48. 
Jerusalem,  Council  of,  150,  152. 
i  Jesus.     See  Christ. 
;  John,  St.,  Gospel  of,  22  sq. ;  vs. 

Docetism,  64. 
John  1.,  Pope,  274. 
John  of  Antioch,  222,  225,  name 
attached  to  letter  to  Nestorius, 

226,  delay  in  reaching  Ephesus, 

227,  after  Third  General  Coun- 
cil, 229  sq.,  reconciliation  with 
Cyril,  230,    imperial   pressure, 
238. 

I  John  of  Damascus,  268,  299,  302, 

304- 

Jovian,  157. 

Judaism,  19,  20,  in  early  church, 
49  sq.,  mission,  51  S<1'»  influ- 
ence of,  in  Samosatenism  and 
Arianism,  58. 

Julian,  107,  125,  156,  157. 

Julianists,  280. 

Julius,  bishop  of  Rome,  153,  154. 

Justin,  Emperor,  273. 

Justin  II.,  278. 

Justinian,  273  sq.,  anathematiza- 
tions, 275,  Fifth  General  Coun- 
cil, 277. 


348 


Index. 


Kant,  20. 

"Labarum,"  109,  no. 

Lateran  Council,  293. 

Latrocinium,  245,  247,  248. 

Law  and  gospel,  19,  20. 

Leo  the  Great,  245,  judgment  on 
Eutyches,  246,  correspondence 
with  Flavian  and  Theodoret, 
246,  the  Tome,  247,  254,  anal- 
ysis of,  260  sq.,  letters  disre- 
garded by  Dioscorus,  260,  activ- 
ity against  Dioscorus,  248,  great- 
ness, 248, 249,  part  inFourthGen- 
eral  Council,  25 1  sq.,  intellectual 
limitations,  257  sq.,  supremacy 
of  Rome,  263,  266,  regarded  in 
East  as  latent  Nestorian,  274. 

Leo  I.,  Emperor,  270. 

Leo  II.,  299. 

Libanius,  2 1 1. 

Liberius  of  Rome,  156. 

Licinius,  105,  1 10. 

Logos,  82,  sq.,  0eoc,  but  not  6 6e6g, 
88,  Arian  views,  96  sq.,  catho- 
lic doctrine,  loo  sq.,  revealed  in 
creation,  167,  184  sq.  ;  Nestorian 
views,  204  sq.,  218,  catholic  doc- 
trine, 317  sq., 325  sq.  SeeAdop- 
tionism,  Incarnation,  Monoph- 
ysitism,  Monoth elitism,  etc. 

Lucian,  58,  91,  117,  119. 

Macedonius,    Macedonians,    178, 

213. 

Macrina,  176. 
Magnentins,  155. 
Marcellus   of  Ancyra,   140,    144, 

150,    pronounced    orthodox    at 

Rome,  154,  1 68. 

Marcian,  250,  252,  253,  263,  264. 
Martin  I.,  293,  297. 
Mary.     See  Theotocos. 
Maximian,  224,  229. 
Maximus,  287,  288,  293  sq.,  death, 

297,  quoted,  306. 
Meletian  schism,  116,  133. 
Memnon,  223,  deposed  by  Anti- 

ochians,  228. 


Milan,  Council  of,  155. 

Miracles,  13,  none  in  nature,  85. 

"  Monarchia,"  70  sq.,  91. 

Monarchianism,  Ebionitic,  70. 
Patripassian,  see  Patripassian 
Monarchianism.  Sabellian,  see 
Sabellian  Monarchianism. 

Mongus,  Peter,  272. 

Monica,  176. 

Monophysitism,  67,  rejected,  68, 
IO-5>  J96,  269  sq.,  liturgical  ad- 
ditions, 270,  273,  274,  revolt, 
274,  Fifth  General  Council, 
277,  present  force,  278,  prin- 
ciples, 278  sq.,  difficulties,  281 
sq.,  attempted  conciliation,  290, 
291 ;  real  cause  of  revolt,  295. 

Monothelitism,  67,  rejected,  68, 
284  sq.,  Honorius  originator, 
292,  later  popes,  293. 

Nature,  divine  principle  in,  84  sq., 
no  miracles  in,  85. 

Neale,  quoted,  58. 

Nestorianism,  condemned,  68,  192, 
201  sq.,  charges  against,  217 
sq.,  summed  up,  232  sq.,  not 
dead  with  Nestorius,  238,  256. 
See  Nestorius. 

Nestorius,  201,  personality,  213, 
216,  218,  attacked  by  Cyril,  219, 
220,  letter  to  Celestine,  220, 
condemned  at  Rome,  221,  the 
twelve  anathematizations,  222, 
counter-anathematizations,  222, 
weakness,  223,  deposed  and 
banished,  224,  226,  228,  letter 
from  Antioch,  226,  firmness, 
227,  John  of  Antioch  joins  in 
condemnation,  230,  in  retire- 
ment, 231,  faith  in  his  inno- 
cence, 231,  232. 

New  Testament,  24,  25.  See 
Christianity. 

Newman,  "  Arians  of  the  Fourth 
Century,"  quoted,  58. 

Nicean  Council.  See  Council,  First 
General. 

Noetus,  71. 


Index. 


349 


Nonna,  176. 
Novatians,  213. 

Old  Testament,  8,  10.  See 
Christianity. 

Origen,  79,  relation  to  Arians,  92, 
93,  101,  144,  202. 

"  Ousia,"  94,  127,  129,  146  sq., 
163,  164,  not  revealed  in  crea- 
tion, 167. 

Pantheism,  73  sq.,  167. 

Paschal  controversy,  116,  133. 

Patripassian  Monarchianism,  71 
sq.,  76,  accepts  incarnation,  79, 
contrasted  with  Arianism,  91 
sq. ;  95,  104;  reviewed,  270. 

Paul,  St.,  opposition  to  other 
apostles,  17  sq.,  49;  mission, 
21,  22;  vs.  Docetism,  64. 

Paul  of  Constantinople,  153. 

Paul  of  Emesa,  230,  231. 

Paul  of  Samosata,  57  sq.,  91,  con- 
demned at  Antioch,  144,  145. 

Pelagius,  40. 

Person,  Persona.   See  Hypostasis. 

Peter  Mongus,  272. 

Peter  the  Fuller,  270. 

Philippopolis,  Council  of,  154. 

Photius,  144. 

Pogonatus,  Constantine,  297,  298. 

Praxeas,  71. 

Proclus,  238. 

"  Prosopon,"  165. 

Pseudo  -  Dionysius  Areopagitica, 
289. 

Pulcheria,  249,  accession,  250, 
253- 

Quartodecimans,  213. 

Redemption,  37.    See  Atonement. 

Religion  and  morality  identical  in 
Christ,  6. 

Rimini,  Council  of,  156. 

Robber  Council,  245,  247,  248. 

Rome,  Council  of,  154. 

Rome,  supremacy  of,  179;  sup- 
ports Alexandria,  246,  under 


Leo,    263,    264,    Chalcedonian 
canon,  265. 

Sabellian  Monarchianism,  71  sq., 
76,  accepts  incarnation,  79,  con- 
trasted with  Arianism,  91  sq., 
95  ;  economic  Trinity,  104.  See 
Sabellianism. 

Sabellianism,  use  of  homoousion, 
144,  doctrine,  168.  See  Sabel- 
lian Monarchianism. 

Sabellius,  71. 

Samosatenism,  57,  58,  connection 
with  Arianism,  59. 

Sardica,  Council  of,  154,  canon  of 
regarding  supremacy  of  Rome, 
179. 

Scriptures.  See  Canon,  Inspira- 
tion, Christology,  Christianity, 
etc. 

Semi-Arians,  147,  157,  158,  159, 
172. 

Sergius  of  Constantinople,  291, 
292,  298. 

Severians,  280. 

Severus,  280. 

Six  Articles,  the,  229,  230,  234. 

Sixtus  III.,  231. 

Socrates,  60,  64. 

Son  of  God,  views  of  Adoptionism, 
305  sq.  See  Logos,  Incarna- 
tion, Church,  etc. 

Sophronius,  291,  292. 

Substance,  Substantia,  165.  See 
"Ousia." 

"  2wa0e«r,"  209,  218. 

Tarsus,  Council  of,  229. 

Tertullian,  129,  144,  196. 

Theodora,  273,  276. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  203,  204 
sq.,  exegetical,  210,  friend  of 
Chrysostom,  210  sq.,  214,  220, 
error  speculative,  224,  vener- 
ated, 226,  works  studied,  238, 
influence  after  death,  239,  anath- 
ematized by  Justinian,  275. 

Theodoret,  212,  222,  225,  226,  re- 
puted author  of  letter  to  Nes- 


350 


Index. 


torius,  226 ;  quarrel  with  Cyril, 
231,  232,  Six  Articles,  234,  at- 
tacked by  Dioscorus,  244,  de- 
posed, 244,  excluded  from  Rob- 
ber Council,  245,  sympathy  with 
Leo,  247,  at  Chalcedon,  251, 
works  anathematized  by  Justin- 
ian, 275,  277. 

Theodosius  II.,  222,  228,  244, 
249,  death,  250. 

Theodosius  the  Great,  162,  172. 

Theodotus,  56,  57,  71,  91. 

Theopaschitism,  270. 

Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  215, 
219. 

Theotocos,  210,  211,  213,  214, 
219,  234. 

"Three  Chapters,"  275  sq. 

Tiberius,  278. 

Tome  of  St.  Leo,  247,  253,  257, 
259,  analysis,  260  sq. 

Trinity,  doctrine  of,  69  sq.,  refutes 
pantheism,  73  sq.,  one  solution 
of  difficulties,  76,  a  fact  not  a 
doctrine,  76,  primitive  thought, 
8 1  sq.,  estimate  of  Athanasius, 
146,  review  of  thought  to  Second 


General  Council,  166  sq.,  posi- 
tion taken  by  Fourth  General 
Council,  252,  termination  of 
discussion,  328.  See  Athana- 
sius, Christology,  Christianity, 
Council,  First  General,  Hypos- 
tasis,  etc. 

Truth  and  reason,  32  sq.  See 
Church. 

Tyre,  Council  of,  150,  152. 

Ulfilas,  171. 

iValens,  157. 
|  Valentinian,   157. 
'  Valentinian  III.,  249. 
i  Victor,  57,  71. 
I  Vigilius,  276  sq. 
Virgin.     See  Theotocos. 

j  Whitsunday,  31. 

|Zeno,  5. 

1  Zeno,  Emperor,  271,  272,  273. 
I  Zenobia,  58. 
Zephyrinus,  57,  71. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  037  791     1 


